Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B, 411 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Snatching case – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Offences, for which the petitioner/accused has been charged, are not of grave in nature – FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 1-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 376, 376 (2n) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – POCSO -- Rape with minor – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Complainant and the victim (19 year old) on oath stated that the FIR sought to be quashed, is the result of misunderstanding same the was lodged in a hot haste, without realizing the consequences of the same -- Both victim and the petitioner were in touch with each other, but there is no allegation of sexual assault, if any -- At the time of alleged offence, the victim was 17 and ½ years old – Victim in her statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC specifically denied factum with regard to her abduction and kidnapping by petitioner, coupled with the fact that she does not want to pursue the criminal proceedings – Since the matter stands compromised and they are no more interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings against each other, no fruitful purpose would be served in case criminal proceedings are allowed to continue – FIR as well as consequent proceedings ordered to be quashed and set-aside.

(Para 4-7, 13, 14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Attempt to murder – Compromise compounding/ quashing after conviction – 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- by Trial court, appeal pending since 2015 -- Compounding application moved by the appellant as well as by the informant -- Respondent No.2/informant contended that he does not want to press the criminal proceedings further against the applicant/accused as the grievances of the informant have settled outside the Court -- Compounding application allowed -- Impugned judgment and order by which the appellant/accused was convicted set aside -- Appellant/accused acquitted of the charges of Section 307 of I.P.C. on the basis of the compromise.

(Para 2-8)

A. Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Section 3k(i), 29(1)(a)(i), 33 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of Complaint – Company not arrayed as party -- Once the company has not been arrayed as accused, the petitioners who are employees of the company, cannot be prosecuted for the commission of the alleged offence -- Complaint quashed.

(Para 3, 8, 13)

B. Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), 3k(i), 24(3)(4), 29(1)(a)(i) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of Complaint -- Re-analysing of sample – Delay by trial court -- Ld. trial court did not decide the application of the petitioners for re-analyzing the samples within the period of shelf life of the product  -- Right of the petitioners for getting the samples reanalysed under section 24(3)&(4) of the Act, has been violated – Complaint quashed.

(Para 2, 9-13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 188, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A – Cruelty – Quashing of police report -- Entire allegations, which would attract offences u/s 498A of IPC alleged to be committed by the 1st accused is outside India -- Matter would come with the ambit of Section 188 of Cr.P.C -- Therefore, proceedings without obtaining prior sanction as contemplated u/s 188 Cr.P.C. is vitiated -- Petition allowed, criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 1, 12, 13)

A. Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (XII of 1989), Section 420 -- Cheating -- Pre-requisite -- Investigating agency or the prosecuting agency, as the case may be, is obliged to show the existence of dishonest intention right from the inception when a person alleged to be deceived is induced to deliver the property etc.

(Para 9)

B. Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (XII of 1989), Section 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 561A -- Cheating -- Supply of plant sapling – Plantation perished – Whether cheating – Quashing of FIR -- Plant or a sapling may perish due to multiple factors, may be with the intervention of weather, due to quality of soil or inadequate supply of water -- Negligence on the part of a farmer may also contribute for the destruction of a plant -- Complainants lodged the FIR without specific material to infer the existence of dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner-accused from the inception – Conversion of a purely civil dispute into a criminal offence is not permissible -- FIR quashed.

(Para 12-15)

Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (XII of 1989), Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Rape – Quashing of FIR -- Petitioner continued to indulge in sexual relationship with prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage for the last 3-4 years -- She lodged the FIR only because the petitioner had betrayed and left her -- Prosecutrix was 26 years of age when her statement u/s 164 Cr. P. C. was recorded -- She is a grown-up and mature lady capable of understanding the consequences of the acts in which she had indulged with the petitioner – No offence u/s 376 IPC is made out against the petitioner and if the investigation in the FIR impugned is allowed to be continued, it would amount to abuse of process of law -- FIR quashed.

(Para 10-18)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 294, 504, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Obscene, act and songs -- Quashing of charge-sheet – Vague allegations – Compromise -- Filthy and unparliamentarily language used not mentioned in the FIR as well as statements of the witnesses -- No offence u/s 294 IPC is made out against the petitioner No. 2 as the allegations are vague and bereft of necessary details – For other offences, since the parties have entered into a compromise, the continuance of the criminal proceedings pending before the learned trial court shall be nothing but an abuse of process of law – Petition allowed, charge sheet quashed.

(Para 1-6)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 377 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Unnatural sex by husband – Quashing of FIR/ charge -- Consent -- Respondent no.2/wife was residing with her husband during the subsistence of their marriage and as per amended definition of "rape" u/s 375 of IPC by which insertion of penis in the mouth of a woman has also been included in the definition of "rape" and any sexual intercourse or act, by the husband with his wife not below the age of fifteen years is not a rape, therefore, consent is immaterial – Held, allegations made in the FIR does not constitute offence u/s 377 of IPC against the petitioner no.1 -- Offence u/s 377 of IPC against the petitioners quashed.

(Para 5, 15, 20)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 294 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Obscene act in any public place -- Prima facie, there is no evidence available on record by which it can be ascertained that the accused persons have committed any obscene act in any public place – Said incidents have been occurred in the premises of the house which is surrounded by walls, hence offence u/s 294 of IPC is not made out against the petitioners -- Offence u/s 294 of IPC against the petitioners quashed.

(Para 16, 20)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Criminal intimidation – Quashing of FIR -- An omnibus statement regarding threatening to kill, which is not sufficient to establish the charge of offence u/s 506 of IPC because the said threaten must consist the ingredients of fear and frightening -- Allegations not containing any date, time and place -- Respondent no.2 had never stated that she was frightened by said threatening, hence offence u/s 506 of IPC not made out against the petitioners -- Offence u/s 506 of IPC against the petitioners quashed.

(Para 17, 20)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A -- Cruelty – Dowry case -- To make out an offence u/s 498A IPC complainant has not only to allege demand for dowry but also that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or relatives of the husband for non-fulfilment of their unlawful demand.

(Para 18)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 156(3), 177, 190 -- Registration of FIR – Territorial jurisdiction -- Power of Magistrate – A Magistrate can order investigation of only those cases which the Court has jurisdiction to enquire into and try under Chapter XV of J&K CrPC which is applicable to the case -- Section 177 of CrPC which falls in Chapter XV provides that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed.

(Para 10)

B. Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (XII of 1989), Section 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 188, 561A -- Quashing of FIR -- Territorial jurisdiction -- A proposal for insurance policy from the travel agent of deceased  at Delhi and it was forwarded to the authorised agent of petitioner/ company stationed at Delhi -- Travel insurance was to take effect from Delhi as the deceased had booked himself from Delhi to Frankfurt -- Death of the deceased in Switzerland -- Thus, neither any event nor its consequence has taken place within the territorial limits of either CJM or within the territorial limits of Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu -- Neither the petitioner-company, nor respondent No.2 is a State subject -- They are not even registered as companies within the jurisdiction of erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir -- Therefore, the provisions contained in Section 4 of RPC and Section 188 of CrPC would not be attracted -- Order of Ld. CJM, Jammu, directing the SHO to register the impugned FIR and investigate the same is, without jurisdiction – FIR quashed.

(Para 11-13, 21)

C. Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (XII of 1989), Section 304 (II), 420, 409, 467, 468 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 561A -- Medical insurance policy – Non-honour of medi-claim – FIR for cheating, forgery & culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Quashing of FIR -- Transaction between the insurer and the insured is purely contractual in nature, if any of the parties to this contract defaults in honouring its commitment, it cannot form a basis for launching a criminal prosecution -- Merely because, on the basis of non-payment of compensation under the insurance policy to the complainant, her son breathed his last, it cannot be stated that the petitioner-company was, in any manner, responsible for his death and it cannot be prosecuted for a serious offence like culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Petitioner/ company cannot be held responsible for forgery of the cancellation letter purported to have been issued by deceased through his agent – FIR quashed.

(Para 14-21)

Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (XII of 1989), Sections 420, 406, 452, 465, 467, 506 and 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 561A – Quashing of FIR -- Occupation of the house despite expiry of the license agreement – Suit for mandatory injunction against the petitioner for vacation of the house in question already filed -- No doubt the suit has been stayed but it does not mean that respondent No.2 can continue to use the criminal proceedings for settling the civil dispute between her and the petitioner – Held, dispute between the contesting parties is predominantly civil in nature and the criminal proceedings have been used to settle the civil dispute – FIR impugned is nothing but an abuse of process of law – FIR quashed.

(Para 19-21)

Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Section 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 -- Insecticides Rules, 1971, Rule 27(5) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468, 470, 473, 482 – Quashing of complaint/ summoning order -- Time barred complaint -- Sample of insecticide was taken on 26.07.2011 and the report of Public Analyst was received on 12.08.2011 – Limitation will commence from the date of receipt of the report of the Public Analyst -- Sanction letter is dated 01.01.2014, which was applied on 06.08.2012 -- Period of 1 year 4 months and 26 days is liable to be excluded for computing the period of limitation -- Complaint filed on 30.03.2016 is beyond the period of 3 years -- Ld. Magistrate was statutorily debarred from taking cognizance of the offence in view of Section 468 CrPC -- Complaint, the summoning order and all subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 8-17)

A. Constitution of India, Article 233, 234 -- Judicial Officer – Code of Conduct -- Unwritten code of conduct is writ large for judicial officers to emulate and imbibe high moral or ethical standards expected of a higher judicial functionary -- Judge’s official and personal conduct be free from impropriety; the same must be in tune with the highest standard of the propriety and probity -- The standard of conduct is higher than expected from a layman and also higher than expected of an advocate -- Even his private life must adhere to high standard of propriety and probity, higher than those deemed acceptable for others.

(Para 22)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- Judicial Officer – Involvement/ Becoming party in litigation/ FIR – A Judge who himself wants to become a party in a proceeding then he must quit his office first, to maintain the standard of purity and unblemished character -- It is not possible that he remain as a sitting Judge on one hand and after using his power prevail upon his subordinate officer to affect arrest his adversary.

(Para 23)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Quashing of FIR -- F.I.R. does not disclose any offence -- Same has been procured by the C.J.M. after exerting threats upon the concerned S.I. – Taking into account the prima facie findings and the material collected by the S.I.T., F.I.R. is driven by malafides and in the colourable exercise of power -- F.I.R. quashed exercising the extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 26, 28)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- FIR -- Judicial Officer as first informant – Instructions given -- Except in the matter of grave and severe nature like murder, suicide, rape or other sexual offences, dowry death, dacoity and in rest of the remaining cases, if any, judicial officer or Judge wants to become the first informant in his personal capacity in any F.I.R., he must take his concerned District Judge into confidence and after having the assent from the District Judge, he can become an informant of any F.I.R.

(Para 27)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Abetment of suicide – Quashing of FIR/ Police report -- Illicit relationship of spouse -- Feeling upset or harassed on account of the illicit relations of a spouse and thereby committing suicide, in the absence of any positive act on the part of such spouse would not constitute abetment -- Apparently, a person of ordinary prudence would not have committed suicide in similar circumstances but the deceased did due to his hypersensitive nature -- FIR and the report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. clearly do not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioners -- FIR, the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed.

(Para 12-17)

Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), Section 108, 117 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 4, 5, -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174, 175 -- Summons u/s 108 of Customs Act – Non- compliance of – Applicability of Section 174, 175 of IPC --  Had there been no provision like 117 in the Customs Act, obviously the concerned person to whom summons have been issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, if fails to comply therewith, would have been guilty for committing an offence under Section 174 of 175 or both of the Indian Penal Code -- Section 117 of the Customs Act, finds place in a Special Act i.e., Customs Act, which is a complete code in itself providing for various violations, offences and penalties and the procedure etc., therefore, Section 174 & 175 of Indian Penal Code will have no application, in view of Section 4 & 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code -- Prosecution u/s 174 & 175 of the IPC quashed.

(Para 8-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304B, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Dowry death – Appeal against acquittal -- Parents-in-law -- They were residing separately and had no occasion to harass the deceased -- Difficult to believe the prosecution case that parent-in-paw used to harass the deceased on account of dowry soon before her death – Learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while holding that the complicity of the parents-in-law of the deceased was not established based on the evidence led before it – High Court will not interfere with the same even if an alternative view is possible – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 30-33)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 494, 34 – Bigamy – Common intention – Quashing of complaint/ order framing charge -- A perusal of the pre-charge evidence led in support of the complaint would reveal that accused No.3 and 4 were not even alleged to be present at the time of such marriage -- Hence, the involvement of these accused for the charge of having a common intention to commit the offence u/s 494 IPC is not established by an iota of evidence -- Criminal case qua them quashed.

(Para 3, 4, 18-22)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 494, 34 – Bigamy – Common intention – Quashing of complaint/ order framing charge -- Accused No. 5, 6 and 7 are friends and they witnessed the alleged bigamous marriage -- Not a shred of allegation by the complainant that these accused, acted as witnesses to the second marriage having knowledge that accused no.1 was already married to the complainant -- Charge of having a common intention to commit the offence u/s 494 IPC is totally unwarranted in the eyes of law -- Allowing the proceedings of the criminal case to be continued against the appellants would tantamount to gross illegality and abuse of the process of Court – Criminal case qua them quashed.

(Para 3, 4, 19-22)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 50 – NDPS case – Acquittal – Foreign national do not know English, Hindi and Punjabi language – Effect of -- Accused-appellant is from Kenya -- PW3 SI categorically stated that accused did not know Hindi, Punjabi or English language and that she only knew the Kenyan language and was speaking only the said Kenyan language and also disclosed that police party did not know the Kenyan language, which was being spoken by the accused-appellant – It cannot be stated that fair trial has been conducted -- Entire investigation is held to be vitiated on account of the accused not understanding any communication made to her by the police party – There is complete non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and numerous material contradictions in the statements of material witnesses – Appeal allowed, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are set aside.

(Para 25-28)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 42 – NDPS Case -- Prior information – Search warrant – Independent witness -- Police received prior information but did not obtain the search warrant because the police apprehended that case property would be destroyed by the delay in procuring the warrant, therefore, it resorted to the provisions of Section 42(2) -- The fact that independent witnesses have not stated anything about preparing the rukka and information under Section 42(2) in their presence and sending the police official with the same shows that there was no compliance with Section 42(2) and the same is fatal to the prosecution case.

(Para 23)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Number of person present at the spot – Inconsistency in – Effect of – Recovery of 1 Kg 200 grams of charas from accused’s house -- Inconsistency regarding the number of persons present on the spot is not minor because the presence of the persons is so intricately connected to the recovery that any inconsistency in the former would affect the latter – Inconsistency cannot be ignored.

(Para 2, 24, 26)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Number of seals – Inconsistency in – Effect of -- Recovery of 1 Kg 200 grams of charas from accused’s house -- Inconsistency regarding the number of seals put on the parcel would show that the testimonies of the witnesses regarding the putting of the seals are not correct, which would affect the integrity of the case property adversely -- Inconsistency cannot be ignored.

(Para 2, 25, 26)

D. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Date of arrest – Inconsistency in – Effect of -- Inconsistency regarding the date of the arrest of the accused will make the whole case of the prosecution suspect because if the accused was arrested on 06.07.2016 and was to be produced before the learned Court on 07.07.2016, the whole of the prosecution case that information was received on 07.07.2016 and recovery was effected on 07.07.2016 in the presence of the accused will become suspect -- Inconsistency cannot be ignored.

(Para 26)

E. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985),  Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Photography of search – Evidential value -- Recovery of 1 Kg 200 grams of charas from accused’s house -- Heavy reliance was placed upon photographs and video recorded the process of search -- Photographs and the video recording could have been used to lend corroboration to the testimonies of the witnesses but when the testimonies are themselves suspect, there can be no question of their corroboration -- Photographs and the video recording by themselves are not substantive pieces of evidence upon which, a conviction can be recorded.

(Para 27)

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (57 of 1994), Section 3, 5, 6, 23, 25, 28 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Disclosing the sex of foetus – Role of owner of Hospital -- Quashing of complaint/ summoning order -- No allegation, direct or indirect levelled against owner of Hospital -- Ownership of the Hospital where the ultrasound was allegedly carried upon a decoy pregnant woman would not make him liable under the PCPNDT Act -- At the very least, the allegations in the complaint should demonstrate the commission of a cognizable offence by the accused in question -- Any such evidence against owner is conspicuously absent – Petition allowed qua owner of hospital.

(Para 1, 13)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 332, 353, 395, 397, 307 -- Dacoity – Attempt to murder -- Acquittal -- None of the accused was identified at the spot nor any of the said persons was known to any of the members of the police party or to the complainant – PW-4, in whose presence dacoity had been committed and who had also signed on various recovery memos, failed to identify the accused and was declared hostile -- Occurrence had taken place during the midnight on ground floor, while the complainant was on the roof of his house and thus identification of accused would certainly be difficult -- Police official/  PW, in his examination-in-chief categorically stated that he cannot identify any of the dacoits, who had fired at him – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 13)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 412 -- Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity – Charges framed only in respect of the jewellery recovered from the three accused and no charges were framed for remaining accused – Three accused convicted, remaining acquitted – Appellants were aged 68 years, 55 years and aged 32 years at the time of passing of impugned judgment and there is no evidence that they are involved in multiple cases – Sentence reduced to already undergone.

(Para 14-16)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 279, 304A – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 133 -- Acquittal in motor vehicle accident case -- Statement of PW5-ASI, the Investigation Officer that notice u/s 133 of the M.V. Act was sent to the owner of the offending vehicle, who endorsed that offending vehicle was being driven by the appellant/ accused -- However, prosecution failed to examine the owner of the vehicle before the trial Court concerned – Held, statement made before the Investigating Officer cannot be accepted as a gospel truth – Conviction set aside – Petitioner acquitted.

(Para 10-14)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118, 138, 139 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Acquittal -- Huge amount of Rs.5 lacs was allegedly given to the respondent-accused in cash -- Complainant failed to provide any documentary evidence in support of the advancement of loan, raising doubts about the credibility of the said transaction – Absence of specific dates regarding the loan advancement and issuance of cheque further weakens the case of the complainant -- Concealment of facts by the complainant including his involvement in a case of fraud and also depositing money into unrelated party’s accounts further undermines the credibility of the case brought-forth by the complainant against the respondent-accused – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 5-8)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118, 138, 139 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Presumption for legally enforceable liability -- Huge amount of Rs.5 lacs was allegedly given to the respondent-accused in cash -- In order to draw presumption u/s 118 read with Section 139 of the Act, the burden was heavily upon the complainant to prove his case against the accused.

(Para 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 403, 420, 421, 425 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – Commercial transaction – Breach of contract -- Three hypothecated trucks not produced for inspection -- Rather disclosed that they had dismantled  and disposed of the same -- Said act prima facie, makes out a case u/s 421 and 425 of IPC -- At the stage of considering the quashing of the FIR, the Court is required only to look into the allegations made in the complaint/ FIR by taking them to be at their face value -- Mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings -- Both criminal and civil law remedy can be pursued – Quashing petition dismissed.

(Para 34-38)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Abetment to commit suicide – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Power to quash the FIR depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case -- It is required to be seen by the High Court as to whether Section 306 IPC is even made out from the contents of FIR or not before coming to the conclusion that quashing of proceedings u/s 306 IPC on the basis of compromise should be allowed or not by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. -- Merely by blaming the petitioners to be responsible for commission of suicide by the deceased in the suicide note, cannot be sufficient to invoke Section 306 IPC – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 13-15, 26)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Abetment to commit suicide – No details are given as to when and in what manner, petitioners harassed the deceased -- Simply by mentioning in the suicide note that accused-petitioner  harassed the deceased and is responsible for the commission of suicide by deceased, cannot be sufficient to invoke Section 306 IPC.

(Para 19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 149 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Murder – Acquittal – Last seen together theory -- The theory of last seen together is helpful to the prosecution if the deceased was seen in the company of the accused in the proximity of the time at which the dead body is found -- Deceased on the day he was found dead, after he was allegedly seen with the accused, attended a meeting of the Congress Party -- Involvement of other persons in the offence is not ruled out – Appellant no. 2 was found in the company of the deceased is not sufficient to link him with the commission of the offence of murder – Conviction of appellants u/s 302/ 149 of IPC set aside.

(Para 17, 18)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 467, 380, 411 – Acquittal – Theft -- Delay in FIR -- Theft had allegedly taken place on the night intervening 21/22.05.2009 at about 03.00 AM and the FIR had been got recorded on 24.05.2009 at 05.30 PM -- Once the accused were identified by the complainant/petitioner at the spot and they had been named in the FIR, the delay in the registration of the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution case – Revision against acquittal dismissed.

(Para 2, 12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 482 – Murder – Summoning of additional accused – Quashing of summoning order -- Not being an eye-witness, PW-1’s deposition is not sufficient enough to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction u/s 319 to summon the appellants -- No other witnesses deposed against the appellants -- No documentary evidence – No role attributed to the appellants -- Deposition of PW-1 is in line and consistent with her statement u/s 161 -- Higher degree of satisfaction required for exercising power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is not met – Held, Trial Court committed a serious error in issuing summons to the appellants -- High Court should have quashed the order – Appeal allowed, impugned order/ judgment set aside.

(Para 23-26)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 3, 4, 8 – Money Laundering case – Acquittal/ discharge of accused – Release of attached property -- Right of – Pendency of appeal – Effect of -- Section 8(6) of the PMLA makes amply clear that if an accused under the PMLA is discharged / acquitted, the learned Special Judge under Section 8(6) has no option but to pass an order releasing the properties attached under the PMLA – Till the judgment of acquittal predicate offence is reversed in an appeal, all the effects of acquittal will continue to operate and mere filing of an appeal against acquittal would not mean that the respondents will continue to suffer the rigors of criminal proceedings or attachment under the PMLA -- No infirmity in the order whereby the attached movable and immovable properties were directed to be released by the learned Special Judge.

(Para 28-32)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 182, 199, 201, 203, 211 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 27 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195, 482 -- Quashing of Challan/ Charge-sheet – Petitioner/ Complainant charge-sheeted in his own FIR -- Petitioner filed private complaint in which preliminary evidence has already been recorded – Not proper for the Investigating Agency to file the challan against the petitioner to prosecute him in the FIR, which was lodged on his own complaint instead of filing the cancellation report -- By not filing the cancellation report, petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to file protest petition -- Challan and Charge-sheet quashed.

(Para 11-19)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 39, 192, 207, 177, 179, 187, 196 -- Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 2001, Section 22, 28 (i) – Cognizance against Post / Non-juridical person – Permissibility of -- Summons in a criminal case to face trial cannot be issued against positions or post as a post is not juridical person – Ld. CJM issued summons against DGM Sail, M/s. RMD Gua Ore Mines more so when such post undisputedly does not even exist -- Taking cognizance by not naming any person who was responsible for the alleged criminal act is certainly not sustainable in law – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Abetment to suicide – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- Uttering words “go and hang yourself” – Whether abetment – No -- Sole accused, husband of the lady with whom the deceased had certain relationship and had blunt out his anger and had uttered words ‘go and hang yourself’ cannot mean that it would become the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC for it to become an offence u/s 306 of the IPC – Reason for the deceased to commit suicide may be myriad, one of which could be the factum of him having illicit relationship with the wife of the petitioner, despite being the Father and Priest of a Church -- Charge sheet filed -- Such cases should be nipped in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. – Proceedings pending before the Principal District & Sessions Judge quashed.

(Para 14-15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 406, 384, 420, 120(B) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Matrimonial dispute  -- Quashing of FIR – Misue of State machinery – One FIR at Hisar – Other at Udaipur – Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 misusing their official position by lodging complaints one after the other – Further, their conduct of neither appearing before the Trial Court at Hisar nor withdrawing their complaint at Hisar, would show that their only intention was to harass the appellant by first making him face a trial at Hisar and then again at Udaipur – Argument that no offence was committed in Hisar but only at Udaipur was also not correct – Court deprecated this practice of state machinery being misused for ulterior motives, imposed cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the respondent No.2 – FIR at Udaipur quashed.

(Para 8-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 376, 3(2)(V) – Murder – Rape – Acquittal -- Not a case of direct evidence -- Not a case of circumstantial evidence -- PW-1 and PW-2, star prosecution witnesses are parents of the deceased -- PW-2 was not present in the village when the incident occurred and PW-1/ mother has not seen the accused/ appellant committing the offence, she claims to have learnt of the complicity of accused/ appellant but no person has been identified from whom information has been received – No recovery from the accused/ appellant -- Not the case that dead body has been recovered on the pointing out of the accused/ appellant – Judgment of conviction and sentence set aside.

(Para 21-28)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 -- NDPS Case – Acquittal – Independent witness – Exclusive possession -- No evidence to establish that the alleged place of recovery i.e. room where a motor was situated, was under exclusive possession, usage, or ownership of the appellant – No explanation from police officials regarding the absence of independent witnesses during the operation -- No efforts were made to establish a direct connection between the appellant and the recovered contraband material – Reasonable doubt created about the genuineness of the recovery – Appellant acquitted.

(Para 9-10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 29, 31 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 30 -- NDPS case – Acquittal – Leave to appeal – Confession/ Disclosure of co-accused -- Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the money allegedly recovered from the possession of respondent-accused i.e. Rs.7,500/- had been derived from the sale of narcotics -- Confession made by one accused cannot serve as a substantive piece of evidence against a co-accused -- Its admissibility is limited only for corroborative purposes -- Acquittal order, upheld.

(Para 5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 120-B – Constitution of India, Article 142 – Cheque bounce complaint / FIR -- Compounding of offence – No consent of complainant – Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Initially, both sides agreed to compound at the appellate stage but the appellant could not pay the amount within the time – Now appellant has paid the entire amount with interest – Appellant in jail for more than 1 year before being released on bail – Now no purpose to keep the proceedings pending – Transaction between the parties was purely civil in nature which does not attract criminal law -- Even though complainant is unwilling to compound, proceedings must come to an end – While exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, criminal proceedings in FIR and criminal appeals against conviction u/s 138 of the NI Act quashed and sentence awarded by the trial court set aside.

(Para 13-15)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Cheque bonce case – Quashing of complaint -- Though the prayer for quashing was made only as regards first and second respondents, by the impugned judgment, the complaint has been quashed in its entirety – Held, there was no reason for the High Court to quash the complaint in its entirety -- Impugned order modified.

 (Para 3-5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157 – Excise matter – Cognizable offence -- Search and seizure without FIR -- There are two kinds of FIRs namely, the FIR can be registered by the informant which was duly signed by him -- Secondly, the FIR can be registered by the police officer himself on any information received by him -- In both the cases, the information should be reduced into writing and thereafter, the investigation must be carried out -- Ex.P1 being a panchanama, it cannot be termed as a complaint -- FIR cannot be registered on the basis of panchanama.

(Para 15, 16)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157 – Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (21 of 1966), Section 32, 34, 38-A -- Excise matter – Cognizance by court -- Search and seizure without FIR – FIR based on panchnama – Void abinitio – Acquittal – Respondent registered the FIR on the basis of panchanama which is erroneous and not proper – Trial Court ought not to have acted upon such FIR and cognizance should not have been taken on the strength of the said FIR – When the registration of FIR itself is void abinitio, the subsequent proceedings including the judgments are liable to be set aside – Revision allowed, judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside – Petitioners acquitted.

(Para 3, 15, 16)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce complaint – Presumption as to liability – Rebuttal – Standard of proof -- Once execution of the cheque is proved/ admitted, the presumptions u/s 118(a) and 139 of the said Act would arise that it is supported by a consideration -- Such presumptions are rebuttable in nature and the accused can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence, and if the accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the complainant who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would dis-entitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument -- Standard of proof so as to prove defence on the part of an accused is 'preponderance of probabilities' and inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies.

(Para 6, 7)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Void cheque – Alteration in cheque -- Amount written in cheque corrected in figures or in number without the knowledge and consent of maker of the cheque amounts to material alteration and also amounts cancellation -- The figure “2" was specifically inserted in cheque specifically without the knowledge of the drawer is a material alteration which makes the documents void -- Accused is not liable for any type of legal recoverable debt -- Nothing is on file to prove any type of transaction or debt to held the accused liable – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 8-10)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Receipt issued on the letter pad of the shop of accused is also not proved the liability of the accused in any manner as no witness regarding the receipt is on the letter pad and without any witness the document did not prove any type of liability towards the accused.

(Para 9)

Public Gambling Act, 1867 (3 of 1867), Section 13(A) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (43 of 1978), Section 4, 5 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of FIR -- Dara Satta/ Gambling -- S.I. was not authorised to conduct the raid -- Petitioners being the authorised dealer/ a member of National Commodity and Derivatives Exchange Limited, so no offence u/s 4 & 5 of 1978, Act made out -- Ingredients u/s 420 IPC are completely missing – FIR, summoning order and subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 7)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Abetment of suicide – Suicide note – In suicide note general allegation against the appellant and her family members (her father, mother and brother) that they are responsible for his suicide -- It is also stated therein that the local MLA had also given him a threat, and therefore, he committed suicide due to mental torture -- Taking the suicide note as it is, the same does not help the prosecution at all, especially when there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant was in touch with the deceased on the telephone or in any other manner -- Chargesheet quashed qua the appellant.

(Para 9, 12)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Abetment of suicide – Quashing of charge-sheet -- No act is attributed to the appellant proximate to the time of the suicide which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide -- Therefore, no offence is made out against the appellant – Chargesheet quashed qua the appellant.

(Para 11, 12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Acquittal -- Leave to appeal -- Ordinarily, the order of acquittal will not be interfered with, merely because another view is possible -- Upon passing the order of acquittal, presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets reinforced and strengthened.

(Para 10)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 15, 18 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 342, 302, 201 – Acquittal -- POCSO – Murder -- Child in conflict with law/ CCIL – Preliminary assessment – Mandate of – Investigating Officer and Trial Court was aware of the fact that Accused/ appellant was juvenile -- In absence of a preliminary assessment being conducted by the Board under Section 15, and without an order being passed by the Board under Section 15(1) read with Section 18(3), it was impermissible for the trial Court to have accepted the charge sheet and to have proceeded with the trial of the accused – Held, procedure adopted by the Sessions Court in conducting the trial of the accused appellant is de hors the mandatory requirements of JJ Act -- Entire proceedings stand vitiated – Such an exercise at this stage would be sheer futility because now the appellant is nearly 23 years of age – Impugned judgment quashed and set aside -- Appellant ordered to be released forthwith.

(Para 25, 26, 38-51)

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Section 21, 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Mining offence – Quashing of FIR -- Registration of the FIR is bad in the eyes of law, as cognizance of an offence under the MMDR Act can only be taken upon a criminal complaint -- MMDR Act is a special statute provisions regarding procedure must be adopted, general provisions of the IPC or the Cr.P.C. will not be attracted -- FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 6-12)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheating -- Forgery – Quashing of FIR -- Information under RTI Act – Signature on application alleged to be forged -- No provision under the RTI Act or Rules made thereunder to file a complaint against an applicant, who sought any information under the said Act -- No loss of property or valuable security has been caused to the complainant, who is an official working under the DITS -- He had no locus standi to lodge prosecution against the petitioner(s) -- FIR ought to have been filed by SK, whose signatures are alleged to have been forged -- FIR and all subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 3, 13, 14)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 415, 463, 464 -- Cheating – Forgery – Essential ingredients for commission of offence of cheating are deception and inducement to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property – There must be an intention to induce a person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and the act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property – Further, to attract ingredients of forgery, there must be making of a false document or false electronic record with an intention to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person.

(Para 10)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 467, 468, 471 -- Forgery -- Making of the false document is sine qua non for launching prosecution u/s 467, 468, 471 IPC.

(Para 11)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 467, 468, 471 -- Forgery -- Ingredients of forgery are attracted; if a person (i) made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; (ii) materially altered or tampered a document; (iii) procured a document by deception from a person, who is not in control of his senses.

(Para 11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 (3 of 1938), Section 3 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 (4) -- Cheque bounce complaint – Acquittal – Money Lender’s license – Respondent/ accused is under no legally enforceable debt as the complainant-company has been advancing loans illegally -- It is imperative to possess a money lending licence as per the Money Lender’s Act -- Section 3 of the said Act provides that the suit or application for recovery of the loan shall be dismissed if the person claiming recovery does not hold a valid licence under the Act -- Thus, the debt becomes an unenforceable debt – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 3-7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing of complaint – Basic ingredients – Requirement of -- Submission that complaint does not contain date of presentation of cheque before the bank, the date of return of the cheque as unpaid from the bank, the date of issuing mandatory notice within 30 days and the date of service of such notice on the drawee – Held, complaint cannot proceed u/s 138 of the N.I. Act without the basic ingredients being mentioned therein – Proceedings of Complaint case quashed.

(Para 2, 5, 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 18, 29, 67 – NDPS Case – Acquittal -- Confessional statement – Reliance upon -- Witnesses turned hostile, appellant was convicted and sentenced by taking recourse to Section 67 of the NDPS Act – Impugned order set aside, appellant acquitted of all the charges. Balwinder Singh (Binda)’s case (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1213 relied.

(Para 1-3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323 -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 4 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4 – Appeal against acquittal – Duty of Appellate Court -- Limitation -- Trial Court acquitted the appellants -- Sessions Court convicted the appellants, however, granted a relief of probation -- High Court has not gone into the question, whether the Sessions Court was aware of the limitations of the appeal against acquittal -- 3 prosecution witnesses and 7 defence witnesses have been examined, there is not even a reference to the depositions of the said witnesses in the impugned judgment -- Impugned order set aside, matter  remanded for fresh consideration by the High Court.

(Para 3-5)