Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320, 401, 482  -- Cheque bounce case – Compromise after conviction – Compounding of offence -- Exemption from 15% of Cheque amount -- Petitioner is stated to be a poor farmer, who had taken the said loan for treatment of his son, who was suffering from cancer and stated to be 67 years of age – Petitioner exempted from paying 15% of the cheque amount -- Application u/s 320 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for compounding of offence allowed -- Judgment and order of sentence set aside.

(Para 17-19)

Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (8 of 1975), Section 3, 7, 10 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468, 482 – FIR under Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act -- Quashing of FIR – Maximum sentence is three years -- Limitation of three years to take cognizance -- Sale deed was executed on 28.04.2011 -- Communication dated 23.02.2012 was sent by the DTP, Kurukshetra to Superintendent of Police on 28.09.2016 leading to the registration of the FIR on 29.09.2016 -- Respondent no.2 was aware of the alleged offence, if any, on 01.12.2011/13.12.2011 and, therefore, the court could have taken cognizance within three years of that date i.e. 01.12.2014/13.12.2014 -- Report u/s 173 Cr.PC was submitted on 17.08.2017 -- Thus, the court could clearly not have taken cognizance beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 Cr.PC -- Petition allowed and the FIR u/s 10 of Haryana Development and Regulations of Urban Areas Act, 1975 along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

(Para 12-14)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 -- Compromise after conviction – Compounding of offence -- Cheque amount paid -- No one appeared to oppose the application on behalf of the private respondent, in spite of service of notice -- Since amount of both the dishonoured cheques (each of Rs.1,00,000/-) has been paid and the disputes have been compromised, the offence may be compounded -- Sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner set aside.

(Para 1, 2)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(3) -- Snatching case – Leave to appeal against acquittal -- Complaint was registered against the unknown persons -- Incident was around 9 PM, no description of the accused was mentioned by the complainant -- No details like International Mobile Equipment Identity of the mobile or the number of snatched currency notes, no test identification parade was conducted by the IO -- IO made arrest next day from the bus stand of village and there was no basis to support as to how IO identified accused -- IO in his deposition deposed that arrest was on the identification of the complainant -- IO faulted in his cross-examination when he stated that neither identification memo was prepared nor the arrest memo was got signed from the complainant -- None of the documents bear the signatures of accused – Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to discharge the onus of connecting the accused with the alleged incident – Statement of the IO when read as a whole including his answers in cross-examination itself is not enough to prove the case of the prosecution –  With so many dents created in the story of the prosecution, the view taken by the trial Court is a plausible and based upon sound record -- No case is made out of illegality on facts or law much less perversity -- Leave to file appeal is declined.

(Para 2-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 447, 506, 511 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of FIR -- Investigation pending -- Inherent powers of High Court – Allegation that petitioners attempted to take forcible possession of the land in question -- Perusal of the FIR shows that the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are present, therefore, it is not a case where the intervention of the Court is warranted for quashing of the FIR -- Investigation in the case is pending, therefore, it is apparent that the petition is pre-mature -- Court not inclined to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage.

(Para 3-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 370, 406, 420 – (Immigration) Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of 1983), Section 24 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Trafficking of person -- Compromise between the parties – Held, compromise is in the welfare and interest of the parties and will enable the parties to live in peace and enjoy their life in a dignified manner -- Also there is no legal impediment in translating their wishes into reality by putting an end to the criminal prosecution initiated on the basis of FIR in question – Petition allowed and FIR and all the subsequent proceedings thereof quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 34, 406, 498-A, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Dowry case -- Quashing of FIR -- Continuation of the prosecution would result in sheer abuse of process of law, controversy does not indicate that the same involves heinous or serious offences and furthermore, the matrimonial dispute has been sought to be amicably settled – FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise are ordered to be quashed.

(Para 6-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881) , Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Compromise in cheque bounce case – Complaint u/s 138 NI Act withdrawn --  Held, since the main complaint stands withdrawn the matter being compromised between the parties, therefore, continuation of the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law – FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof quashed qua the petitioner subject to payment of cost of Rs.7000/- to the Legal Services Authority.

(Para 5-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420 (Section 204 added later on) -- Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 66-D – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Cheating  case – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Allegation that the petitioner who was the ex-employee of respondent No.2, committed fraud with the said company – Report of JMIC along with statements of the parties received, in which, it is mentioned that the compromise is genuine and there was no undue influence or coercion from any side -- Respondents No.2 appeared in the Court through his counsel and pleaded that he has no objection if the FIR is quashed on the basis of the compromise – Petition allowed, FIR and all the subsequent proceedings thereof quashed qua the petitioner.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B, 411 --- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Snatching case – Dishonestly receiving stolen property -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Matter amicably settled between the petitioner and respondent/victim, who have decided to bury their dispute and live in peace – No useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue -- Petition allowed and FIR u/s 379-B, 411 IPC and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed.

(Para 4, 13, 14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 316, 323, 406, 498-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Causing death of quick unborn child (Section 316 IPC) – Dowry case -- Compromise quashing of FIR --  Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise – FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 8-12)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person -- FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Compromise in complaint u/s 138 NI Act case – Complaint was dismissed as withdrawn – FIR u/s 174-A of IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 2-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Abetment to suicide -- Compromise quashing of F.I.R. -- There can be no compromise with the dead man -- As such the FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise.

(Para 1,6,7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), 406, 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheating – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Victim/aggrieved person stated before the CJM that there would be no objection if the Court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings -- Continuing proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose -- FIR and all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner(s) quashed.

(Para 4-8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Cheque bounce complaint – Pre-mature complaint -- Leave to appeal -- Trial Court found the complaint pre-mature -- Cheque dishonored and returned with the remark ”Account Closed” -- Notice sent to the accused, who refused to accept notice – Complaint filed on 13^th day of refusal – Complainant-appellant registered the complaint before the statutory period of 15 days -- Leave to appeal dismissed.

(Para 4-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 279, 304A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Acquittal of accused – Accidental death case – Rash and negligent driving -- Offending vehicle on inappropriate side -- Best incriminating evidence withheld by prosecution -- PW-1 and PW-2 assign the relevant incriminatory role to the convict -- Both were also required to candidly speak in their respective testifications, that the convict at driving the offending vehicle, had maneuvered it to the inappropriate side of the road, and, that thereupon, he had breached the standards of due care and caution, and, consequently, committed the charged offences -- Their respective testifications, does not reveal so -- Even the investigating officer as PW-5, despite his making a communication qua his drawing the site plan carried in Ex.PW5/E, rather not in his examination-in-chief, speaking with candor, about the afore factum of the offending vehicle being driven on the inappropriate side of the road, and, nor in the site plan, there are candid underlinings, with respect to the afore -- Benefit of doubt, is to be given to the convict – Impugned verdicts, as, drawn by the both learned Court below, upon the convict, are quashed, and, set aside.

(Para 10-14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 279, 304A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Acquittal of accused – Accidental death case – Rash and negligent driving -- Offending vehicle on inappropriate side -- Best incriminating evidence withheld by prosecution -- It was incumbent upon the investigating officer, to both in Ex.P-3 (drawing) and upon his stepping into the witness box make, vivid disclosures suggestive of the offending vehicle occupying the inappropriate side of the road -- However, both the afore are not communicated by him in either -- Benefit has to be given to the accused -- Revision allowed, impugned verdicts, as, drawn by the both learned Court below, upon the convict, are quashed, and, set aside.

(Para 11-18)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 279, 337 -- Rash and negligent driving -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Accused and injured compromised the matter -- Continuing with proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose -- High Court invokes the inherent jurisdiction and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.

(Para 1,2,3,13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 498-A -- Quashing of FIR -- Investigation is pending, challan has not been presented -- Held, petition is premature at this stage -- Petitioner would be at liberty to approach the court after filing of the challan.

(Para 3-5)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Acquittal by Trial court – Presumption of innocence – Power of Appellate Court -- It is well settled that:-

(A) While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the reasons which had weighed with the Trial Court in acquitting the accused must be dealt with, in case the appellate Court is of the view that the acquittal rendered by the Trial Court deserves to be upturned .

(B) With an order of acquittal by the Trial Court, the normal presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced.

(C) If two views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate Court must be extremely slow in interfering with the appeal against acquittal.

(Para 7)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 50 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378, 379 -- Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, Section 2A -- NDPS case -- Acquittal by Trial court – Conviction by High court – Non-compliance of requirement of affording an option for personal search – However, no recovery from personal search -- High Court proceeded to consider the evidence on record straightaway without considering the reasons that had weighed with the Trial Court -- It is true that the personal search did not result in recovery of any contraband material but the non-compliance of requirement of affording an option, was one of the reasons which weighed with the Trial Court in disbelieving the case of the prosecution -- Assessment on facts made by the Trial Court was absolutely correct and did not call for any interference by the High Court – Appeal allowed, judgment and order passed by the High Court set aside and order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court restored.

(Para 8-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 504, 406, 498-A, 506, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 – Acquittal in dowry matter – Revision against -- No medical evidence on record to prove the allegations of physical assault – Allegation of  physical assault in the presence of two cousins, but neither of them were examined during trial nor cited as prosecution witnesses -- Petitioner/complainant while appearing as PW-1 did not utter a word, much less, by way of a whisper regarding the allegations of physical assaults – A panchayat was convened between the parties with regard to the harassment but none of the members of the said panchayat were either examined during trial nor cited as prosecution witnesses -- Allegations of misappropriation of the dowry could not be proved by any cogent or reliable evidence in the absence of any evidence of entrustment of dowry – Revision against acquittal dismissed.

(Para 1, 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 293, 313, 386 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Murder – Remand for trial in appeal -- Deceased died due to gunshot injury -- Seizure of firearm from appellant – Report of a Ballistic Officer although admissible u/s 293 of the CrPC, but before placing reliance on such a report, the person placing trial has to be given full opportunity to challenge and rebut the report -- Neither the copy of the report was supplied to the applicant nor the contents of the report were brought in evidence – Ld. Sessions Judge also omitted to put any question to the appellant in his examination u/s 313 of CrPC on the basis of contents present in the ballistic report/ Ex.P-39 which were admissible in evidence u/s 293 of CrPC – Held, grave error committed by the learned Sessions Judge – An accused person has an entitlement of a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution -- Conviction technically not sustainable, appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside -- Trial against the appellant stands revived, case remanded back.

(Para 11, 12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 326, 324, 506, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 210(3) -- FIR – Private Complaint – Closure report in FIR – Acceptance of -- Cognizance by Magistrate in complaint – Power of – In FIR and private complaint, the offences are similar, and, also the offenders are the same -- Exception existing Section 210 (3), completely barred the ld. Magistrate, to after accepting the closure report, from yet assuming cognizance or valid jurisdiction, upon both, and/or to either consolidate the closure report, with private complaint.

(Para 11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Presumption – Rebuttal of presumption  -- Signature mismatch – Cheque lost Complaint – Stop payment – Effect of -- Cheque is dated 12.06.2017 -- Cheque books were lost in 2016, GD entry and the acknowledgment of the concerned police station cannot be ignored –Request for stopping of cheques way back in 2016 made to Bank -- Subject cheque which has been dishonoured is the leaf from the cheque book which is lost way back in 2016 -- Complainant failed to place any document to establish the transaction between the complainant and the accused – In the absence of the same, it throws a doubt that whether the cheque which is the subject matter of the dispute is legally enforceable or not -- Judgment & order passed by the trial court punishing the accused and order of the lower appellate court confirming the order of the trial court set aside.

(Para 2, 3, 9-14)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 – Acquittal of accused – Revisional Powers for conviction -- Section 401 (3) of Cr.P.C. prohibits/bars the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction -- High Court has revisional power to examine whether there is manifest error of law or procedure etc., however, after giving its own findings on the findings recorded by the court acquitting the accused and after setting aside the order of acquittal, the High Court has to remit the matter to the trial Court and/or the first appellate Court, as the case may be.

(Para 9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 – Acquittal by the first appellate court -- Revisional Powers for conviction -- High Court has two options available, (i) to remit the matter to the first appellate Court to rehear the appeal; or (ii) in an appropriate case remit the matter to the trial Court for retrial -- High Court has erred in quashing and setting aside the order of acquittal and reversing and/or converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction -- Order of conviction is therefore unsustainable, beyond the scope and ambit of Section 401 Cr.P.C., more particularly sub-section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C.

(Para 9)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Acquittal in complaint case – Right to appeal -- Where an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint, the complainant (other than victim) can prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C., subject to the grant of special leave to appeal by the High Court.

(Para 10.1)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 378(4), 401 -- Acquittal of accused – Non-preferring of appeal by victim -- Revisional jurisdiction -- In a case where the victim and/or the complainant, as the case may be, has not preferred and/or availed the remedy of appeal against the order of acquittal as provided under Section 372 Cr.P.C. or Section 378(4), as the case may be, the revision application against the order of acquittal at the instance of the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall not be entertained and the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall be relegated to prefer the appeal as provided under Section 372 or Section 378(4), as the case may be.

(Para 10.2)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401(5) -- Power of High Court to treat Revision as Appeal -- Where under the Cr.P.C. an appeal lies, but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person, the High Court has jurisdiction to treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly as per sub-section (5) of Section 401 Cr.P.C., however, subject to the High Court being satisfied that such an application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do and for that purpose the High Court has to pass a judicial order, may be a formal order, to treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly.

(Para 11)

F. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 401(3)(5) -- Acquittal of accused – Conviction by High court in revision – Impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused quashed and set aside – Matters remitted to the High Court – High Court directed to treat the revision applications as appeals under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and thereafter to decide and dispose of the same in accordance with law on their own merits.

(Para 12, 13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case -- Proclamation Person – Accused was at abroad -- Averred that at the relevant time, of the serving constable proceeding to execute the proclamation notice, the petitioner was outside India -- Without believing the afore averment, supported by an affidavit, rather the impugned order yet depended upon the infirm report of the serving constable, and, hence becomes ridden with a vice of infirmity, as it was incumbent, upon the learned Magistrate concerned, to ensure, that prior thereto, his eliciting a report of the serving officer, whether the petitioner was residing at his abode, as mentioned against his name, in the memo of parties -- Service of the proclamation notice never became validly caused upon the petitioner – Impugned order quashed and set aside.

(Para 3-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 148, 149, 506, 201 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Proclamation Notice – Period of 30 days to appear – Non-providing of -- Quashing of Proclaimed offender order -- Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. mandates that a period of not less than 30 days has to be provided for causing appearance from the date of publication of such proclamation -- Accused was required to appear on 9.11.2020, it was on 23.10.2020 that the proclamation was actually effected -- As on the date when the proclamation was effected i.e. on 23.10.2020, the accused was afforded only 16 days to cause his appearance – Declaration of proclaimed offender order set aside.

(Para 1, 4-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 324, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of cross-version -- Delay in reporting cross-version – Ground of -- Mere delay in registration of the cross version is no ground for quashing of the same -- It is a case of version and cross version, which can only be decided after leading evidence – Petition dismissed.

(Para 8-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 325, 323/34, 452 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 401 – Injury case -- Sentence reduced to already undergone -- Petitioner No.1 has already undergone 04 months and 23 days of actual sentence, and petitioner No.2 has undergone actual sentence of 07 months and 07 days out of 2 years – Petitioner No.1 is 57 years of age and petitioner No.2 is 33 years of age – FIR is of the year 2017 and the petitioners have suffered agony of trial for the last four years -- Petitioners never misused the concession of bail/parole nor were involved in any other case and they are also married and are bread-winners for their family -- Petitioners are also ready to compensate the complainant -- While maintaining the impugned judgment of conviction, the sentence awarded by the Courts below to the petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone by them -- Sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs.25,000/- each to Rs.55,000/- each.

(Para 7-11)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Test Identification parade/ TIP – Object of -- Purpose of holding a test identification parade during the stage of investigation is only to ensure that the investigating agency prima facie was proceeding in the right direction where the accused may be unknown or there was a fleeting glance of the accused.

(Para 9)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 395, 397 – Dacoity case -- Test Identification parade/ TIP -- FIR was registered against unknown persons -- Case of the prosecution solely rests on identification in the TIP -- A test identification parade u/s 9 of the Evidence Act is not substantive evidence in a criminal prosecution but is only corroborative evidence -- Mere identification in the test identification parade cannot form the substantive basis for conviction unless there are other facts and circumstances corroborating the identification.

(Para 9)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Test Identification parade/ TIP – Onus to Prove -- Onus lies on the prosecution to establish that the TIP was held in accordance with law -- It is only after the prosecution prima facie establishes a valid TIP having been held, the question of considering any objection to the same arises -- If the prosecution has failed to establish that a TIP was properly held by examining the witnesses to the same, there is nothing for the accused to disprove.

(Para 10)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 395, 397 – Dacoity case -- Test Identification parade/ TIP -- Magistrate conducted the TIP -- Magistrate has not been examined -- No explanation is forthcoming why the Magistrate was not examined -- Only evidence available is that of PW-4 the SHO that during the investigation the TIP was held in the District Jail and he identifies the proceedings in the Court -- Identification of the proceedings is irrelevant as he could not have been present during the TIP -- There cannot be repeated TIPs till such time that the prosecution is successful in obtaining identification of the accused -- PW-1 who is the mother of PW-2, and both of them are stated to have been present in the house when the occurrence took place, did not identify any of the appellants -- Identification by a minor boy and that too in the 3rd and 4th rounds insofar as the present appellants are concerned -- In the nature of the TIP held it is completely non est in the law and the benefit has to go to the accused.

(Para 11,12)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 42, 50, 67 -- NDPS case – Acquittal of accused in appeal – Investigaiton by Adhoc ASI -- Over-writing on consent Memo – Effect of -- Being not a substantive Assistant Sub Inspector, HC/EASI was an Ad hoc ASI and holding the substantive rank of a Head Constable -- As such, he was not competent to exercise the powers and perform the duties as specified in Sections 42 and 67 of the NDPS Act – Besides this, over-writing in the notice and consent memo u/s 50 NDPS Act, is sufficient to hold that thick clouds of suspicion are hovering over the case of the prosecution -- It is a cardinal principle of the criminal law that the prosecution has to prove the guilty of the accused beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, however, the prosecution has failed to do as such -- Appeal allowed; the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court set aside; and the accused-appellant is acquitted of the charge framed by giving the benefit of doubt.

(Para 13-18)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Rape case – Quashing of FIR -- Respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint alleging, inter alia, that the appellant had committed an offence u/s 376 of the IPC -- Both the accused (appellant) and respondent No.2 were living together for a considerable while -- Complainant’s allegation is that the appellant duped her by misrepresenting to her that he is divorced -- Complainant, according to the accused, is not unmarried and her marriage subsists -- A child was born in the meanwhile as a consequence, a mediated settlement limited to the maintenance and upkeep of the child was arrived at by them -- Having regard to these facts and the submissions made on behalf of the complainant, who does not dispute that this may not be an appropriate case for pursuing the prosecution further -- Criminal proceedings must be quashed.

(Para 3-6)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 118 -- Child witness – Reliability of -- Criminal jurisprudence does not hold that the evidence of a child witness is unreliable and can be discarded -- A child who is aged about 11 to 12 years certainly has reasonably developed mental faculty to see, absorb and appreciate -- Evidence of a child witness alone can also form the basis for conviction -- Mere absence of any corroborative evidence in addition to that of the child witness by itself cannot alone discredit a child witness -- More so when he is the sole witness, a heightened level of scrutiny is called for.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 – Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – Value of -- Allegation that the appellant stuffed cloth in the mouth of the deceased was serious and specific against her – Held, in the absence of any question having been put to her in this regard u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant has been seriously prejudiced in her defence -- Procedure u/s 313 CrPC is but a facet of the principles of natural justice giving an opportunity to an accused to present the defence -- Burden of proof on an accused in support of the defence taken u/s 313 CrPC is not beyond all reasonable doubt as it lies on the prosecution to prove the charge -- Accused has merely to create a doubt -- It will be for the prosecution then to establish beyond reasonable doubt that no benefit can flow from the same to the accused.

(Para 9, 10)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 118 – Dowry death/ Murder – Acquittal of Jethani -- PW-2/ Child witness was examined nearly one year after the occurrence -- Court has, therefore, to satisfy itself that all possibilities of tutoring or otherwise are ruled out and what was deposed was nothing but the truth -- According to PW-2, the appellant stuffed cloth in the mouth of the deceased, thereafter others tied her up and set her on fire leading to 95% burns -- He states that after the deceased had suffered burn injuries he had seen the entire scenario including the room where the burnt articles were kept including that he was a witness to his sister being put in a vehicle while being taken to the hospital -- He then states that the deceased in that condition was speaking -- At no stage has the witness deposed that the cloth was taken out from her mouth -- It stands to reason that if cloth was stuffed in the mouth of deceased she would have been unable to speak -- PW-8/ Doctor deposed that there was no cloth recovered from the mouth of the deceased -- He states that the mouth of the deceased was closed, the jaws were shut, no cloth was present in the mouth but burnt cloth was present on the whole body starting from the wrist -- More crucially he states that all the 32 teeth were intact – Blisters were present at various parts of the body but he does not talk about any blister being present in the mouth -- No injuries of any nature have been found inside the mouth neither has the cloth been found – Court not satisfied that the evidence of PW-2 attributing a specific role to the appellant is of such a sterling quality so as to inspire confidence in the court to base the conviction on the sole evidence of a child witness -- Appellant was a daughter-in-law like the deceased herself -- Nature of the evidence makes it highly unlikely that she would have engaged in such actions -- Benefit of doubt in the circumstances has to be given to the appellant.

(Para 7, 11-13)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 201 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B -- Locus-standi of complainant -- If a forgery had been done and mis-representation has been made, any person can set law in motion.

(Para 22)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 201 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B -- Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 31 -- Summoning order – Challenge to -- Justice hurried is Justice buried -- It is the settled principle that the Magistrate could have always differed with police report, but once it had been approved by the Commissioner of Police, who had been directed by High Court to look into the same and it was on record and the record of the same could have been summoned from the office of the DCP -- Magistrate could not brushed aside and ignored the report, summoning order was passed on the same day the inquiry report (Ex.CW8/C) was exhibited when produced by the complainant -- Thus, the old adage came into play that is “Justice hurried is Justice buried” -- Summoning order is liable to be quashed on this ground.

(Para 26)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 201 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B -- Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 31 -- Forgery case -- Summoning order – Challenge to -- Basis for summoning was on the strength of photocopy of the documents -- Allegations of forgery would not be justified by the Trial Court in the absence of the originals as such and without an opinion of any expert evidence -- Mere the strength of the photocopies produced and in the absence of any sufficient evidence, summoning order on the said basis is not legally sustainable.

(Para 32-35)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 201 – Summoning of accused -- Criminal law should not be set into motion as a matter of course -- Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence and summoning the accused on the asking is not to be done unless there is cogent evidence and there is a applicability of mind.

(Para 35)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 197, 201 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B -- Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 31 -- Forgery case -- Summoning of government employee as accused – Sanction of government – Requirement of -- Without the necessary sanction the Trial Court was not justified in summoning the said accused and he is entitled to the protection u/s 197 Cr.P.C. and there is a legal bar as such to initiate his summoning.

(Para 35-39)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 42, 43 – NDPS case – Non-compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act – Acquittal of -- Recovery from Private Vehicle -- R.C. of the vehicle does not indicate it to be a Public Transport Vehicle -- Private vehicle would not come within the expression “public place” -- Admitted position that there was total non-compliance of the requirements of Section 42 of the NDPS Act -- Total non-compliance of Section 42 is impermissible –Appeal allowed, order of High Court set aside -- Appellants acquitted of the charge levelled against them.

(Para 12-15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 482 -- Rape case – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Appellant promised complainant that he will marry her, which promise was not kept by him resulting in FIR – Parties resolve their differences and eventually got married on 11.10.2014 – Both are enjoying happy married life, due to miscommunication FIR came to be registered, which issues/ misunderstanding have now fully resolved -- Basis of FIR does not survive, rather registering such FIR was an ill-advised – In the interest of justice, Court accede to the joint request of quashing of FIR – FIR be treated as effaced from the record in law.

(Para 4-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Summoning of accused – Quashing of – Jurisdiction of -- Petitioners have only been summoned and they are yet to lead evidence in support of their innocence before the trial Court -- Thus, the summoning order cannot be quashed so as to scuttle the criminal proceedings, at the very initial stage of the trial, especially when the petitioners have failed to establish that the initiation of the criminal proceedings, is an abuse of process of law.

(Para 13)

A. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 18, 20 -- Domestic violence – Prima facie case -- Summoning of -- Section 18 of the 2005 Act stipulates for a protection order in favour of a woman -- Section 20 of the 2005 Act deals with the monetary relief to the aggrieved party and the same can be granted by a Court -- Before issuing notice, the learned Magistrate has to be prima facie satisfied that there have been instances of a domestic violence.

(Para 22)

B. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 18, 20 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of summoning order -- Abuse of process of law – Petitioners, mother-in-law aged 65 years is 40% disabled from eyes, and is suffering from old age ailments, father-in-law, aged 73 years, is a chronic kidney patient and has been on dialysis thrice a week and married sister-in-law is a Government Teacher and since her marriage in 2009, she has been residing in her matrimonial home and looking after her two minor children -- A pure matrimonial dispute between husband and wife, has been given a colour of the proceedings under the 2005 Act so as to rope in hapless parents-in-law and a married sister-in-law -- They have been roped in with an oblique motive to harass and mentally torture them -- Moreover, the allegations leveled in the complaint are vague, general and omnibus in nature -- Proceedings qua the petitioners, are nothing, but a clear abuse of process of law -- Summoning order and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed, qua the petitioners.

(Para 33-36)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 364A, 376, 216, 120B – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 11, 106 -- Murder -- Rape -- Kidnapping -- Out of three eye-witnesses, two witnesses, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution -- Both these witnesses are close relations of the victim and there is nothing on record to indicate that they were either put under any pressure or that there was any element of suspicion -- Both these witnesses were categorical that the persons who kidnapped the victim were not before the Court in the capacity as the accused – Third witness-informant, the father of the victim, reporting made by this witness, based on which the crime was registered neither shows that he was an eye-witness to the occurrence nor does it disclose that the identity of the accused who had kidnapped the victim was in any way known at the stage when the occurrence took place -- Thus, all three witnesses who were claimed to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence and on whose testimonies, reliance was placed by the prosecution, are of no help.

(Para 20, 21)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 364A, 376, 216, 120B – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 11, 106 -- Murder -- Rape -- Kidnapping -- Circumstantial evidence – Though the post-mortem report discloses that the victim was sexually assaulted, the FSL Report on record does not establish any connection of the accused with the sexual assault on the deceased victim -- Dead body of the victim was found lying in an open field -- Record is again not clear as to when the present appellants were arrested and how and in what manner their disclosure statements led to the recovery of the dead body – There are of course circumstances like recovery of clothing apparel as well as tiffin box etc. belonging to the victim -- However, such recoveries by themselves, in the absence of any other material evidence on record pointing towards the guilt of the accused, cannot be termed sufficient to hold that the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt -- Not only those circumstances are not conclusive in nature but they also do not form a cogent and consistent chain so as to exclude every other hypothesis except the guilt of the appellants -- Held, prosecution has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt -- Conviction and sentence set aside.

(Para 24-27)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 346, 363, 366 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Kidnapping -- Respondent No. 2-complainant, has not appeared, despite service, it indicates that he has nothing to say in the case -- Since respondent No. 3 has performed marriage with the petitioner of her own will and has been residing happily with him at her matrimonial home, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue -- Petition allowed, FIR and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner.

(Para 15, 16)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 153A, 505(1)(c) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Facebook post stating discrimination – Not a community hatred – Quashing of FIR -- Agony of the Appellant was directed against the apathy shown by the Chief Minister, the DGP and Dorbar Shnong of the area in not taking any action against the culprits who attacked the non-tribals youngsters -- Appellant referred to the attacks on non-tribals in 1979 --  At the most, the Facebook post can be understood to highlight the discrimination against non-tribals in the State -- However, the Appellant made it clear that criminal elements have no community and immediate action has to be taken against persons who had indulged in the brutal attack on non-tribal youngsters playing basketball – Held, there was no intention on the part of the Appellant to promote class/community hatred -- Offence u/s 153 A and 505 (1) (c) have not been made out – Appeal allowed, judgment of High Court set aside, FIR quashed.

(Para 13-16)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – FIR u/s 174-A IPC -- Impugned FIR is an outcome of the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person in proceedings initiated against him u/s 138 of the NI Act, which stands settled as the complainant has withdrawn the complaint and the proceedings against the accused-petitioner have been dropped -- In such circumstances, the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person as well as the continuation of his prosecution cannot be permitted to continue -- Impugned FIR along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom quashed.

(Para 8, 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 120-B -- Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014, Section 13 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner and respondent/victims, who have decided to bury their dispute and live in peace – No useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue -- Petition allowed and FIR and proceedings emanating therefrom ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioner.

(Para 7, 10,11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of complaint/FIR/charge-sheet – Inherent power u/s 482 CrPC -- Complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and the High Court at that stage was not under an obligation to go into the matter or examine its correctness -- Whatever appears on the face of the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same.

(Para 23)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Section 226 -- Inherent power of High Court for quashing of complaint/FIR/charge-sheet -- Exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinise the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in deciding whether the case is the rarest of rare case, to scuttle the prosecution at its inception.

(Para 28)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Section 226 -- Inherent power of High Court for quashing of complaint/FIR/charge-sheet -- Allegations in the complaint will have to be accepted on the face of it and the truth or falsity of which would not be gone into by the Court at this stage, whether the allegations in the complaint were true is to be decided on the basis of the evidence led at the stage of trial.

(Para 30)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Section 226 -- Inherent power of High Court for quashing of complaint/FIR/charge-sheet -- Only requirement is to see whether continuance of the proceedings would be a total abuse of the process of the Court -- Criminal Procedure Code contains a detailed procedure for investigation, framing of charge and trial, and in the event when the High Court is desirous of putting a halt to the known procedure of law, it must use proper circumspection with great care and caution to interfere in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

(Para 31)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Section 226 -- Inherent power of High Court for quashing of complaint/FIR/charge-sheet -- Availability of civil/ arbitration remedies -- FIR/ Complaint / Charge-sheet – Legality of -- Ingredients of the offences u/s 406 and 420 IPC cannot be said to be absent on the basis of the allegations in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet -- Whether the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct or not, has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during the course of trial -- Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court for exercising inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing such proceedings.

(Para 32)

F. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Section 226 -- Inherent power of High Court for quashing of complaint/FIR/charge-sheet -- Breach of terms of the contract – Contention that civil dispute or initiation of the arbitral proceedings would not attract the provisions u/s 406, 420, 34 IPC may not hold good -- It can be defence during the course of trial but was not open to be examined by the High Court to take a judicial notice and for quashing of the criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

(Para 35)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of 1983), Section 24 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Immigration matter -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue -- FIR and proceedings emanating therefrom ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioner, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-.

(Para 10, 11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138/ 142 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Complaint u/s 138/142 of N.I. Act – Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A IPC – After notice of accusation, the petitioner did not appear before the ld. Trial Court, he was declared as proclaimed person – Subsequently, the petitioner caused his appearance on the same day and was released on bail – Petitioner settled the dispute with the complainant-Company and the entire amount was paid and the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn – Consequently, petition is allowed and FIR u/s 174-A IPC along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, quashed.

(Para 2-7)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Following ingredients are required to be satisfied for making out a case under Section 138 of the Act, 1881:

(i) that a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability;

(ii) that cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

(iii) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank;

(iv) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;

(v) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.

(Para 7)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce complaint – Legally enforceable debt or liability -- Presumption – Rebuttal -- Once a cheque has been signed and issued in favour of the holder, there is statutory presumption that it is issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability -- However, this presumption is a rebuttable one -- If the accused will able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail -- Onus is upon the accused to rebut the presumption and to establish that the cheque in question was not given in respect of any debt or liability, however, for which it is not necessary for the accused to disprove the existence of consideration by way of direct evidence, even the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant can be relied upon.

(Para 23)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Legally enforceable debt or liability -- Presumption – Rebuttal -- Respondent-accused denied his signature on the cheque -- Accused has not led any evidence in support of this plea -- Accused even did not come in the witness box to support his case -- Statement of the accused u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a substantive evidence of defence of the accused but only an opportunity to the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution case -- Mere statement of the accused may not be sufficient to rebut the presumption.

(Para 24, 25)

D. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) – Acquittal – Leave to appeal -- Complaint against partner -- Partnership Firm not arrayed as accused – Effect of -- For the purpose of Section 141 of the Act, 1881, a firm comes within the ambit of a company – Cheque had been issued by the firm which was subsequently dishonoured, a partner of the firm would not be liable for prosecution u/s 138 of the Act, 1881 without the firm being arraigned as an accused – Ld. Trail court acquitted the accused -- Appeal, by special leave, preferred by the appellant-complainant dismissed.

(Para 1, 30-34)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 156(3), 200, 210, 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Complaint as well as FIR – Legality of -- Merely because on the same set of facts with the same allegations and averments earlier the complaint is filed, there is no bar to lodge the FIR with the police station with the same allegations and averments -- However, at the same time, if it is found that the subsequent FIR is an abuse of process of law and/or the same has been lodged only to harass the accused, the same can be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C -- In that case, the complaint case will proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 156(3), 200, 210, 482 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Criminal proceedings – Quashing of – Inherent power of High Court -- Inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution is designed to achieve salutary purpose that criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into weapon of harassment -- When the Court is satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law or that it amounts to bringing pressure upon accused, in exercise of inherent powers, such proceedings can be quashed.

(Para 6.1)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 156(3), 200, 210, 482 – Quashing of FIR – Abuse of process of law -- Inherent power of High Court -- Complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act pending -- After a period of three months, an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking registration of FIR – Ld. Magistrate declined to order registration of FIR and decided to inquire into the matter by treating the same as complaint case -- Ld. Sessions Judge remanded back the matter to the learned Magistrate with directions to pass a speaking order – Thereafter, after a period of two years, impugned FIR against the appellants with police station with the similar contents and allegations which were levelled in the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C – Complainant is not proceeding further with his application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., which is pending since last five years – In the FIR, no reference of application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act – Held, impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and can be said to be filed with a view to harass the appellants -- High Court ought to have exercised the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India/482 Cr.P.C. and ought to have quashed the impugned FIR to secure the ends of justice – Appeal allowed, impugned criminal proceedings/FIR registered u/ss 420/406 IPC quashed.

(Para 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape case – Relation on pretext of marriage – Non-performing of marriage -- Quashing of FIR -- From the contents of the FIR as well as the statement u/s 164 of CrPC three important features emerge: (i) The relationship between the appellant and the second respondent was of a consensual nature; (ii) The parties were in the relationship for about a period of one and a half years; and (iii) Subsequently, the appellant had expressed a disinclination to marry the second respondent which led to the registration of the FIR – Held, for the purposes of considering the application for quashing u/s 482 of CrPC, no offence has been established -- No allegation that the promise to marry was false at the inception on the contrary, from the contents of the FIR appears that there was a subsequent refusal – Held, High Court was in error in declining to entertain the petition u/s 482 of CrPC – Appeal allowed, impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside -- Charge sheet in pursuance of the investigation and order of the trial Court taking cognizance shall stand quashed and set aside.

(Para 8-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 323, 341, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Attempt to murder – Compromise quashing of FIR – Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue -- Petition allowed, FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom ordered to be quashed.

(Para 9, 10)