Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A – Kidnaping – Compromise quashing – Petitioner and girls were minor at relevant time -- No evidence of actual commission of an offence under the POCSO Act, warranting to take a stricter view – Fit case for exercise of inherent powers so as to give a quietus to the issue – FIR and all proceedings pertaining thereto are quashed.

(Para 1, 5-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – NDPS case -- Conviction for 1 year – Sentence reduced to already undergone --  Appellant has undergone about 09 months, is a very poor person and has his own family to support -- Appeal partly allowed and the sentence reduced to the period already undergone by him – Fine also reduced from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.4,000/- to be deposited by appellant within a period of 03 months.

(Para 14, 15)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Cheque bounce case – Conviction of accused -- Compromise at revisional stage – Acquittal from -- Matter can be compromised at the stage of pendency of revisional proceedings before the High Court -- Conviction and sentence of the accused can be set aside -- Petition allowed, petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Damodar S. Prabhu’s case AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1907 and Sri Ashish Subba’s case 2018 (1) RCR (Criminal) 971 relied.

(Para 8-10)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections u/s 498-A, 506, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Quashing of complaint/summoning order after Proclaimed offender order – Held, it would be in the interest of justice to see at the first instance whether any offence is made out against the petitioners as per allegations levelled against them in the complaint or not -- Because if the complaint fails, as a necessary corollary, all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom would automatically go.

(Para 1, 14, 15)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections u/s 498-A, 506, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Summoning order -- Proclaimed offender order – Quashing of -- Father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law – Role of – Specific allegations – Requirement of – No direct and specific allegations against the petitioners that they had given beatings to the complainant or demanded any dowry article or misappropriated the shtridhan – It has become a common practice to use the provisions of Section 498-A IPC as a weapon rather than shield by disgruntled wives – Casual reference of their names that husband of the complainant gave her beatings at the instance of petitioners – Held, case in hand is a sheer abuse of process of law -- Consequently, the complaint and all subsequent proceedings including the summoning order and order declaring proclamation offender, qua petitioners are quashed.

(Para 1,18,19)

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s) – Offence under SC/ST Act – Ingredients of offence – Strict interpretation -- To constitute the offence under the Act, it must be alleged that the accused intentionally insulted or intimidated with intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe in any public place within public view -- Since these are the penal provisions, the same are to be given a strict construction and if any of the ingredients are found lacking, it would not constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act.

(Para 10-15)

B. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s) – Offence under SC/ST Act – Talks on mobile – Mens rea -- Alleged conversation over the mobile phone was not in a public gaze nor witnessed by any third party, the alleged use of caste words cannot be said to have been committed within the public view -- Merely uttering such wrong words in the absence of any public view does not show any intention or mens rea to humiliate the complainant who besides being Sarpanch, belongs to Scheduled Caste community -- It would not, thus, ipso-facto, constitute acts of commission of offence, which are capable of being taken cognizance under the SC and ST Act, 1989.

(Para 10-12)

C. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227, 228 -- Offence under SC/ST Act and IPC -- Discharge by Trial court – Power of -- It is a settled law that if two views are possible and one gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at that stage, it is not to be seen whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.

(Para 13)

A. Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Section 24(2) -- Chemical Examiner’s report – Manufacturer right -- Copy of – Although Section 24(2) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 does not itself lay down that Chemical Examiner’s report is to be conveyed to the manufacturing firm or to other accused but it is expected in the interest of natural justice and fair trial that a copy of the Chemical Examiner's report be conveyed to the manufacturing firm also especially if the manufacturing firm is also to be prosecuted.

(Para 12)

B. Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Section 24(2) -- Chemical Examiner’s report – Re-examination of – Right of -- Provisions of section 24(2) of the Act do not mandate that each and every of the accused is to be afforded an individual opportunity of re-analysis -- If in a given case, re-analysis has been got done at the instance of any one of the accused, then certainly there is no need for any further re-analysis.

(Para 13-15)

C. Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 -- Managing Director – Role of -- Managing director need not be assigned a specific work as he, in such capacity is overall in-charge of conduct of business of the firm -- Thus, cannot escape from his liability on account of the insecticide having been found misbranded which was manufactured by the company of which he is the Managing Director.

(Para 23-25)

D. Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 -- Quality Incharge – Role of -- A person who is monitoring the quality of the product being manufactured by the firm is the key person who would be responsible for ensuring quality of the product -- He is also liable to be prosecuted on account of misbranding of the insecticide in question.

(Para 27)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190 – Complaint – Contents of -- Complaint is not expected to be encyclopedic and it is only during the course of trial that the complainant can fully substantiate the averments and allegations made in the complaint as regards the role and responsibility of the accused.

(Para 28)

F. Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 – Godown Incharge – Role of -- Since the insecticide in question, in any case is in sealed condition, therefore the Godown Incharge whose primary job is to keep the articles intact and to further pass on the same to the Distributors and Dealers and is himself not supposed to sell the same cannot be said to have committed any offence under Insecticides Act 1968 so as to have rendered himself liable for prosecution -- As such, the complaint qua him deserves to be quashed.

(Para 29)

Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Sections 3(k)(i),17,18,29,30(3),33 – Insecticide Rules 1971, Rule 27(5) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Misbranded articles – Quashing of complaint -- Samples of the misbranded articles were collected from the Premises while in “sealed containers”, which were not found to be stored improperly and, in any event, there is nothing on record to indicate that being the Dealers, the Petitioners had any other source of information that the concerned product was misbranded – No averment nor any suggestion to the effect that the Invoice under which those Insecticides purchased by the Petitioners-Dealer under the specific Invoice was ever got scrutinized or not found to be genuine – Complaint held to be untenable qua the present petitioners, all subsequent proceedings including summoning order stand quashed.

(Para 11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(3) – Acquittal in rape case – Leave to appeal – Accused was driver of the official vehicle of husband of prosecutrix – She was pregnant on the date of alleged incident – Prosecutrix and her husband did not report about the alleged incident dated 04.03.2014, to the police, till 02.02.2015 -- Even during the next 15 days after the alleged incident, she kept on accompanying accused in the official vehicle for medical check-up -- There is no corroborative evidence in the shape of medical report, to strengthen the testimony of prosecutrix regarding the alleged rape -- No reliable evidence for continuously giving threats to the prosecutrix, on her mobile phone -- Trial Court appreciated the evidence led by the parties in right perspective, while giving benefit of doubt to respondent No.2/accused -- There is no illegality in the impugned judgment – Application seeking grant of leave to appeal dismissed.

(Para 2, 17-19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 498-A, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Compromise after conviction – Quashing of FIR/ Conviction/ Order of sentence -- To secure the ends of justice and in the interest of all concerned, fit case to invoke inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C and quash the FIR registered – Sentence for the offence under Sections 323, 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 IPC for a period of two years is set aside on the basis of the compromise.

(Para 1, 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A, 506, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 (4) -- Dowry demand – Physical assault – Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal -- Allegations that she was subjected to merciless physical assault on a number of occasions, however, no medical evidence in support -- Father of the complainant while deposing admitted that in fact the main dispute between his daughter and her husband was on account of a suspicion, which his daughter had qua her husband having illicit relations with his sister-in-law – Complainant herself admitted during her deposition that the dowry articles and the istridhan, which were given to her at the time of her marriage, were in her possession and had been under lock and key in her matrimonial home -- On a complaint moved to the SSP, an inquiry was conducted, it was found that no such instances of harassment had ever taken place -- Complainant miserably failed to rebut the aforementioned inquiry report in any manner – Not a fit case for grant of special leave to appeal, acquittal order upheld.

(Para 8, 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape case – Compromise quashing -- Complainant has solemnised marriage with petitioner and she is residing with him as husband and wife at her matrimonial home -- Out of the wedlock, a son has been born – FIR registered u/s 376 of IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same qua petitioner are quashed.

(Para 10,11)

    Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Cheque bounce case of Company – Incharge of the affairs of the Company, no document to support – Accused neither Director nor a signatory of cheque -- Quashing of complaint --

(a)     The complaint is based on a Memorandum of Understanding, which is not signed by the petitioner and is rather signed by accused No.3. The dishonoured cheques were given to the complainant at the time of signing of the Memorandum of Understanding.

(b)     The cheque numbers of the disputed cheques are duly mentioned in the body of the Memorandum of Understanding signed by accused No.3, which show that he was the person In-charge of the Company as he entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of accused No.1-Company and had issued the cheques in favour of the complainant.

(c)     Even the cheques are not signed by the petitioner and the same are signed by accused Nos.2 and 3.

(d)     In the complaints, the only allegation in para 3 is that accused No.4-petitioner is In-charge of the affairs of accused No.1-Company, however, there is no document to support this version and rather in the reply filed by the complainant in High Court, nowhere reflects that the petitioner is the In-charge of the affairs of accused No.1-Company, in any manner.

(e)     There is nothing on record to support the complaints that the petitioner is one Director of accused No.1-Company as it is the case of the petitioner that he never remained the Director of accused No.1-Company at any stage and this fact is not disputed in the reply.

Summoning orders and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner.

(Para 15,16)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape case – Compromise quashing -- Complainant stated that she wants to marry accused – Compromise has been effected, which is without any pressure or coercion -- FIR registered u/s 376 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same qua petitioner are quashed.

(Para 10,11)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 24 -- Extrajudicial confession is a weak type of evidence however, it cannot be discarded outrightly.

(Para 26)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 24 – Murder -- Extra-judicial confession – Blood on danda – Blood grouping of -- As per FSL report, human blood was detected but blood group was not ascertained, there is no result, with regard to, blood grouping -- Blood so allegedly found, on the danda, does not stand sufficiently connected to be that of deceased -- No other sufficient evidence, coming on record -- Circumstance relating to extra-judicial confession, has been rightly discarded by the trial Court.

(Para 26, 27)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder -- Injury by fall – Possibility of -- Doctor deposed possibility cannot be ruled out of suffering of the injuries, in case a person, under intoxication falls on stones or forcefully strikes against the wall and in cross-examination that injury of fracture of rib, can be result of fall on a hard surface -- Considering the same, it cannot be concluded with certainty that the injuries in question were caused by lathi of budberry tree and this also gives dent to the prosecution version.

(Para 28)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8, 106 – Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Motive -- In case based on circumstantial evidence, motive gains importance -- Dispute, which had taken place about one and half year ago, relating to boundary wall of the fields, relating to which, compromise effected -- No satisfactory evidence, coming on record -- Even, no evidence, relating to the matter having given quietus, by the police, as such, has been led -- In the light of the same, the motive part, does not stand established.

(Para 29)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8, 24, 106 – Murder -- Extra-judicial confession – Blood on danda/ weapon of offence -- Blood grouped not connected with the blood of deceased – Doctor deposition that possibility cannot be ruled out of suffering of the injuries falls on stones or forcefully strikes against the wall and in cross-examination that injury of fracture of rib, can be result of fall on a hard surface -- Motive of previous quarrel not proved --  Prosecution version cannot be termed to be free from doubt and precisely, benefit of such doubt so arising, ought to be extended to the appellant – Appeal allowed, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside.

(Para 26-31)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 308, 323, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Attempt to murder -- Compromise quashing – 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 u/s 308, 323, 506, 34 of the IPC (Challan presented u/s 307, 323, 506, 34 of the IPC) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 11, 12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 379-B, 454, 323, 506 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Snatching case – 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 alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner, on the basis of compromise subject to costs of Rs.10,000/-.

(Para 6, 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – NDPS case -- Recovery of 1 Kg 800 gms of ganja – R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default further S.I. for a period of 2 weeks – Appellant is not a previous convict, he is a poor person having his wife, who has since died – Appellant has undergone actual imprisonment for a period of 08 months and 04 days – Quantity of contraband is marginally above the small quantity and in such circumstances, some more leniency in the matter of sentence can be extended to the appellant -- Sentence of the imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone without alteration with regard to the sentence of fine.

(Para 3, 11-13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 323, 148, 149 – Kidnapping 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 u/s 363, 323, 148, 149 IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 9,10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of FIR – Settlement between parties – No allegation against the petitioner that he was directly involved in the rash and negligent work of the Contractor, which resulted into death of two workers – No offence under Section 304-A IPC is made out against the petitioner -- Legal heirs/family members of two deceased have received Rs. 10,40,000/- each as compensation and have shown their satisfaction that they have received sufficient amount -- Even Insurance Company has paid an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- to the legal heirs/family members of each deceased as well as the State of Haryana has also paid a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to legal heirs/family members of each deceased -- In view of the above facts and circumstance and also in view of the fact that the matter stands amicably settled, the petition is allowed and FIR u/s 304-A IPC with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. hereby quashed.

(Para 17-21)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 365, 366-A -- FIR u/s 365 – Challan u/s 363, 366-A – Run-away couple marriage – Proclaimed person -- Compromise quashing of FIR – Petitioner no.1/girl had gone out of her own free will and solemnised marriage with petitioner no.2 -- Offence u/s 363, 366A of IPC not made out against the petitioner no.2 – Petition for police protection was also filed by the petitioners -- FIR and all consequential proceedings including order declaring petitioner No. 2 as proclaimed person being abuse of process are liable to be quashed for securing the ends of justice -- In view of the settlement between the parties, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak -- Continuation of the criminal case will subject petitioner No. 2 to great oppression and injustice – FIR and consequential proceedings including order declaring petitioner no. 2 as proclaimed person are quashed.

(Para 11-16)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 (4) -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 302, 307, 449, 120-B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 -- Appeal against acquittal – Condonation of delay of 111 days – Declined  -- Reason/ground for condonation of delay in the application has not specifically been explained – State does not have the right to file appeals at belated stage on the ground of procedural delay -- State is expected to expedite the matter in case they want to prefer appeal against judgment of acquittal or conviction -- No proper explanation has been given by the State -- Application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

(Para 8, 9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 (4) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 302, 307, 449, 120-B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 – Murder case -- Appeal against acquittal – Trial Court gave a specific finding that accused was not named neither by the complainant nor by PW-5 stating him to be a part of conspiracy -- As per FSL report, the weapon was found to be in a working condition but none of the live cartridges were ever used by respondent/ accused in the commission of offence – By giving the benefit of doubt, he has rightly been acquitted.

(Para 16)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18 (c) – NDPS case -- Sentence reduced to already undergone --  Recovery of 700 gram from appellant and 300 gram of opium from co-accused – Conviction for one year RI and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo RI for 02 months – FIR relates to the year 2016 -- Sentence undergone 4 month, 17 days -- It is a fit case wherein sentence can be reduced to the period already undergone -- Sentence of fine and default clause shall remain intact -- Appellant be released forthwith on deposit of fine.

(Para 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Rape – Quashing of FIR -- Proclaimed offender – Compromise between the parties -- Relationship was not based on a false promise of marriage – Affidavit submitted by the prosecutrix establish that the relationship was consensual with the prosecutrix, 28 years at that time -- Both were major and capable of taking a reasoned decision to enter into a physical relationship -- It is also not the case of the prosecutrix that the act complained off occurred only once or that she had been subjected to any kind of force -- It is not her case that the complainant has forcibly raped her --  FIR would further reflect that the marriage was not being solemnized on account of his parents not giving their consent – Held, it could not be said that he had made a false promise of marriage, only to entice her into the said physical relationship -- Very offence of rape would not be established -- FIR u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and all subsequent proceeding including the order declaring him to be a proclaimed offender are quashed since the continuation of the same would tantamount to abuse of the process of law.

(Para 5, 15-18)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce case – Rebuttal of presumption -- Initial presumption is in favour of holder of the cheque in view of Section 139 of the Act, however, the same is rebuttable -- It is permissible for the accused to rebut the same on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution.

(Para 6)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) – Acquittal in cheque bounce case – Leave to appeal -- Signatures on the cheque is not denied, yet the complainant has failed to prove any friendly relationship with the accused -- No acknowledgement has been placed on record nor in the income tax returns Mark `A’ and Mark `B’, there is any reference of loan when it is an admitted fact that the wife of attorney (complainant) had been into the business of Hire Purchase and Investment for the last 20 years -- It is permissible for the accused to point out contradictions/deficiencies in the evidence led by the prosecution and that it is not necessary for the accused to lead evidence in defence to rebut the presumption -- No ground to grant leave to appeal. ANSS Raja Shekhar’s case (2019) SCC 185 & Kishan Rao’s case (2018) 8 SCC 165 relied.

(Para 14-17)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 41, 50 -- Personal Search – Procedure of -- Personal search of the juvenile was conducted by Lady Constable, though there was no recovery -- On search of the box which was put in a carry bag, fifteen injections of Buprenorphine 2 ML each were recovered – Police was required to comply with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act -- Investigating officer did not record reasons for his belief which necessitated the search of the juvenile without producing her before the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and no such copy of reasons to belief was sent to the superior officials within 72 hours -- Search and seizure proceedings get vitiated as the very purpose of introducing an independent official witness in the form of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate during the search and seizure gets defeated – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 11, 12)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Acquittal of accused – Interference in appeal -- Even if a second view on appreciation of evidence is possible, the Court will not interfere in the acquittal of the accused -- In the cases of acquittal, there is double presumption of innocence; and secondly, the accused having secured an acquittal, the Court will not interfere until it is shown conclusively that the inference of guilt is irresistible -- Finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse and the same is affirmed.

(Para 12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A, 406 – Compromise quashing of FIR – Complainant/wife not appearing for recording statement – Effect of -- After entering into a compromise between the parties and having the benefit under the said compromise, the wife cannot be permitted to back out of the compromise -- Respondent-wife is not stepping forward to have her statement recorded -- Proceedings under the FIR deserved to be quashed -- Petition allowed and FIR registered u/s 406, 498-A, IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same as well as the proceedings under the FIR quashed

(Para 8-10)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 482 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 – Civil suit – Handwriting expert report – F.I.R. w.r.t. forged receipts – Sustainability of -- Quashing of FIR -- Handwriting expert in civil suit has opined that signatures in all the four receipts did not tally with the sample signatures which were of respondent No.2 -- It was only thereafter, FIR was registered -- In the Summary Suit, issue No.5 has been framed by the Court “whether the defendant proved that the plaintiff has fabricated the forged signature illegally and created forged receipts” – Held, when the issue as to the genuineness of the receipts is pending consideration in the civil suit, the FIR ought not to have been allowed to continue as it would prejudice the interest of the parties and the stand taken by them in the civil suit -- Based on the sole opinion of the handwriting expert, the FIR ought not to have been registered -- Continuation of FIR would amount to abuse of the process of Court – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR allowed.

(Para 18, 19)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Sections 45, 72, 118(a) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Quashing of complaint -- Presumption of legal enforceability debt – Rebuttal of -- ‘Y’ admitted the issuance of cheques -- Once the issuance of cheque is admitted/established, the presumption would arise u/s 139 of the N.I. Act in favour of the holder of cheque that is the complainant-appellant No.3 -- Burden lies upon the accused to rebut the presumption by adducing evidence -- High Court did not keep in view that until the accused discharges his burden, the presumption u/s 139 of N.I. Act will continue to remain -- When disputed questions of facts are involved which need to be adjudicated after the parties adduce evidence, the complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act ought not to have been quashed by the High Court by taking recourse to Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(Para 20)

A. Constitution of India, Article 311 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13 -- Acquittal in F.I.R. – Departmental proceedings on allegations, which were subject matter of FIR – Enquiry officer fallen in error and actually shows the intention of the authorities not to initiate the departmental enquiry against the petitioner for any other allegation except the allegations which were subject matter of FIR -- After the evidence has been examined by the trial court and it has recorded its findings acquitting the petitioner, the observations in the enquiry report clearly amounts to re-appreciation of evidence.

(Para 10,11)

B. Constitution of India, Article 311 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13 -- Acquittal in F.I.R. -- Suspension period of an employee – Submission that during the pendency of the criminal case, where employee is acquitted, should be deemed to be on duty for all intents and purposes – Punishment orders quashed, respondents are directed to consequently, re-fix the pay of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

(Para 14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141, 142 -- Proclaimed person – FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Quashing of -- Petitioners have shown a bona fide cause for non-appearance before the trial Court as service was not effected at the ordinary place of residence of the petitioners and they were not aware of the said fact and immediately, on coming to know about the said order, they compromised the case with the complainant and the complaint u/s 138 of the Act was withdrawn later on – Petition allowed, impugned order as well as FIR u/s 174-A IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, quashed.

(Para 7,8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 325, 379-B, 506, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Snatching case -- 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 all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority.

(Para 10, 11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 -- Rape case -- Compromise quashing of FIR – Offence of serious nature -- Exception deserve consideration -- Offence u/s 376 IPC is an offence of grave nature – There are always exceptions to the normal rules and certain categories of cases, which deserve consideration, specially when it is case of love affair between teenagers and on fear of the society and pressure from the community one party alleges rape, cases where the accused and the victim are well known to each other and allegation of rape is levelled only because the accused refused to marry, as well as the age, educational maturity and the mental capacity, sequences of the same ought to be kept in mind when inclined to interfere.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 -- Rape – Compromise quashing of FIR – Physical relation on the pretext of marriage – Marriage fixed, boy ran away – After FIR, both married – They are living now as husband and wife – Compromise entered into for quashing of an offence u/s 376 IPC is accepted -- FIR u/s 376 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same qua petitioner are quashed.

(Para 5-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 427, 452, 376, 511, 148, 149 – Rape – Attempt to rape – Compromise -- Quashing of FIR -- Contention that there is no allegation of commission of rape and allegation is attempt to commit rape – This fact has not been disputed by complainant – FIR u/s 323, 427, 452, 376, 511, 148 and 149 IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise.

(Para 5-9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A – Kidnapping – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Petitioners have solemnised marriage and the complainant, who is mother of petitioner No.1, has suffered a statement before learned Magistrate in support of compromise -- Continuation of the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant FIR qua the petitioners shall be an abuse of the process of law -- FIR u/s 363 and 366-A IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

(Para 6,7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 354-D – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 12 – Compromise quashing -- Compromise is found genuine, voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence -- Taking into consideration the nature of allegations and the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties FIR u/s 354-D IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

(Para 11, 12)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 499, 500 – Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act by Bank – Acquittal from – Defamation -- Merely because the Court comes to the conclusion that no offence is made out, does not give a handle to the accused to launch the defamation proceedings against the complainant.

(Para 13-17)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 499, 500 – Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act by Bank – Acquittal from -- Defamation – Mens-rea -- Bank or its employees cannot be in any case held to have committed an offence u/s 500 IPC because, the most essential ingredient of the said offence i.e. ‘mensrea’ would be missing as a Bank or its employees -- Mensrea or criminal intention is lacking on the part of the petitioners and hence, they cannot be held guilty of offence of defamation within the meaning of Section 499 IPC.

(Para 14-16)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8 -- Murder – Common intention – Motive – Relation of parties -- Overt Act – Prosecution mainly rests on the evidence of PWs 14 and 15, who were the eye-witnesses of the incident : 

-- Accused No.3 had a motive to commit the murder of the deceased, inasmuch as he was eyeing the property which was being cultivated by the deceased on a Batai basis. Murder was committed through the overt acts of the two accused other than the appellant.

-- Moot question, whether the appellant also participated in the offence, especially since he has not been shown to be a friend or relative of the other accused, or to have any specific motive for murdering the deceased.

-- Post-mortem report and the evidence of the doctor made amply clear that the death was caused due to incised injuries, of such a nature which could have been caused by the axe and sickle carried by the other two accused.

-- Other two injuries, being a laceration and an abrasion, which could possibly be attributed to the appellant, may even have been a result of the deceased falling to the ground, since injuries such as bruises, abrasions and lacerations may very well be sustained as a result of a fall -- Thus, there does not appear to be strong evidence of the active participation of the appellant in the offence.

-- In their examination-in-chief, witnesses deposed that the appellant assaulted the deceased with a lathi on his knee and head, it was proved in the cross-examination that these statements made before the Court were “improvements” -- If these improvements are excluded from consideration from the evidence of PWs 14 and 15, it can be safely said that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt about the active involvement of the appellant in the offence in question through any overt act.

Proceeding on the basis that the appellant was present on the spot of the offence -- Court did not find that the commission of the offence of murder stands proved as against the appellant with the help of Section 34, IPC, either.

(Para 6-10)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34 -- Common intention -- Principle of joint criminal liability -- In order to invoke the principle of joint liability in the commission of a criminal act, the prosecution should show that the criminal act was done by one of the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention of all -- If this is shown, the liability for the offence may be imposed on any one of the persons in the same manner as if the act was done by him alone -- It may be difficult to procure direct evidence to prove the intention of an individual, and in most cases it has to be inferred from the facts and relevant circumstances of the case – Totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether the accused persons had the common intention to commit the offence with which they could be convicted.

(Para 12,13)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8 -- Murder – Common intention – Motive – Relation of parties -- Appellant had no specific motive to participate in the commission of the offence, did not have any rivalry with the deceased or his family, and has not been shown to be a friend, relative or hireling of the other two accused – Prosecution has failed to prove any common intention on the appellant’s part, inasmuch as there is no hint of any motive or reason for him to have either participated in pre-planning the murder of the deceased, or to develop the common intention to do so while present at the spot of the offence -- Evidence against the appellant is shaky and insufficient to bring home guilt against him, benefit of doubt must enure to him -- Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court as against the appellant stands set aside -- Appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him.

(Para 13,14)

Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Sections 3(k)(i),17,18,29,33 – Insecticide Rules 1971, Rule 27(5) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468, 470, 482 – Misbranded articles -- Quashing of complaint -- Limitation of 3 years to file complaint – Time spent in sanction – Exclusion of -- Officer tried to explain the delay, that initially incomplete consent/sanction was granted, later necessary correction was sought and if this period is excluded then there is no delay in filing the complaint – Held, this plea cannot be accepted -- Complaint and all the consequential proceedings including the summoning order quashed, qua the petitioners.

(Para 6-12)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Cheque bounce case – Presumption u/s 139 of N.I. Act -- Dismissal of complaint – Appellant/complainant has averred that the amount of cheque is part of sale consideration which stands belied from the reading of registered sale deed -- Once on preponderance of probabilities the defence creates doubt, the onus shifts on the complainant to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and the protective umbrella of Section 139 of the N.I. Act is no more available. Dismissal of complaint order, upheld. Rangappa’s case, (2010) 11 SCC 441 relied.

(Para 1,7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 498-A, 506 – Dowry case – Criminal breach of trust – Embezzlement of istridhan – Quashing of FIR -- FIR is a document first in point of time is very foundation of the case – Only general, vague and ambiguous allegations, no specific entrustment of any of the articles of Ishtridhan to any of accused-petitioners nor there is any allegation that they have embezzled the same and refused to return back these articles which were meant for the exclusive use of the bride/complainant – Husband is residing where he was employed and where too the complainant wife had put up after the marriage – Material question arises how the articles of Ishtridhan have come about in possession of the in-laws – Proceedings held to be misuse of the process of the court against innocent relations of the husband resulting in gross miscarriage of justice, needs to be set aside -- FIR and all the proceedings arising therefrom quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 3, 4)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 42, 67 – Acquittal in NDPS matter -- Investigation by Assistant Sub-Inspector – Assistant Sub Inspector, the investigating officer of this case is a C.2 Constable which is an upper rank for the post of Constable, substantive rank still continues to be that of Constable and is drawing pay of the Constable – Provisions of the Act of 1985 are stringent and provide for severe punishment -- In such a situation, it is the duty of the investigating agency to strictly comply with the requirements of the Act – Accused acquitted.

(Para 2-7)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(i-a) – Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 498-A -- Divorce petition by husband -- Acquittal of husband -- Cruelty as a ground -- Husband acquitted after a trial for offence u/s 498-A of IPC, levelled by the wife – Ground for divorce made out – Decree of divorce granted.

(Para 14-16)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Review of order in criminal proceedings – Power of High Court -- High Court could not have recalled its earlier order u/s 482 Cr.P.C, inasmuch as there is no provision for recalling or reviewing an order passed by it in criminal matters.

(Para 2)

B. Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (6 of 2007), Section 2(a), 2(b), 9 – Child marriage – Adult Wife -- Prosecution of boy aged 17 years – Permissibility of -- Protection order passed in favour of married couple – Later-on boy age found to be 17 years – On application of father of girl, High Court recalled protection order and direction given for registration of FIR against boy for offence u/s 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 – Held, High Court could not have recalled its earlier order and there was no exceptional circumstance calling for an exercise of the High Court’s inherent powers – FIR quashed.

(Para 2-6)

C. Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (6 of 2007), Section 2(a), 2(b), 9 – Adult Wife -- Boy aged 18 to 21 years – Child marriage -- Prosecution of boy – Permissibility of -- Held, it can be treated as a child marriage but cannot be brought under the ambit of Section 9 -- FIR against boy quashed.

(Para 3-6)

D. Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (6 of 2007), Section 2(a), 2(b), 9 – Interpretation of Statute -- Mischief Rule -- Marginal note -- Adult Wife -- Boy aged 18 to 21 years – Child marriage -- Prosecution of boy -- Intention behind punishing only male adults contracting child marriages is to protect minor young girls from the negative consequences thereof by creating a deterrent effect for prospective grooms who, by virtue of being above eighteen years of age are deemed to have the capacity to opt out of such marriages – Hence, cannot be brought under the ambit of Section 9, as this is not the mischief that the provision seeks to remedy -- Marginal note of Section 9, which reads “Punishment for male adult marrying a child” -- Where any ambiguity exists with regard to the interpretation of a legislative provision, the marginal note can be used in aid of construction, having regard to the object of the legislation and the mischief it seeks to remedy – Held, the words “male adult above eighteen years of age, contracts a child marriage” in Section 9 of the 2006 Act should be read as “male adult above eighteen years of age marries a child”.

(Para 3)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21A, 21B, 21C, 22A, 22B, 22C, 42(1), 50 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(2) -- NDPS case -- Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal -- What weighed with the trial Court was the fact that both the notices u/s 42(1) and 50 of the NDPS Act were defective -- Further even on merits there was material difference in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding the point of time on which the notice u/s 50 was served upon the respondent/ accused – State has not been able to justify the infraction of the mandate of Sections 42(1) and Section 50 or explain the discrepancies in the statements -- Application seeking leave to appeal dismissed.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338, 427 – Death by rash and negligent driving – Acquittal of -- Testimony of PW-3 which includes his cross-examination does not make out a case that he had seen the accident with his own eyes and he had not seen the accused on the spot – There was no 'Test Identification Parade' of the accused and even during trial, he has not been able to identify the accused person – He was unable to note-down complete number of the offending vehicle as well -- Testimony of remaining witnesses more or less becomes formal in nature -- Apart from that, there was no material evidence available -- Revision accepted. impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are set-aside.

(Para 9-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 379-B, 379 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 54 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Snatching case – 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 all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner only, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/-.

(Para 9, 10)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18 18(b) – NDPS Matter -- Reverse burden of proof – Culpable mental state -- Prosecution shall be put to a stricter test for compliance with statutory provisions -- If at any stage, the accused is able to create a reasonable doubt, as a part of his defence, to rebut the presumption of his guilt, the benefit will naturally have to go to him.

(Para 9)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18 18(b) -- Search and seizure -- Recovery of contraband – Large vacant space below signature of witness – Doubt in – It is clearly abnormal and cannot be lightly wished away especially when the independent witnesses have deposed that they were not present at the time of such search and seizure -- It certainly creates a doubt with regard to the veracity of the allegations made by the prosecution.

(Para 11)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18 18(b) – Acquittal in NDPS matter -- Identity of sample/contraband -- Late production of sample seized in court – Effect of -- No credible evidence that the FSL sample produced related to the very same contraband stated to have been seized from the appellant – No reasonable explanation why the sample seized from the appellant and deposited in the Malkhana could not be produced in the Court except after a long gap of one year – Appeal against conviction allowed.

(Para 12-19)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3), 200 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 34 -- Civil dispute – Criminal proceedings – Abuse of process of law -- After coming to know that the property was mortgaged with the Bank, the original complainant himself paid the mortgage money and got the mortgage redeemed and got the sale deed executed in his name – Complainant filed an application u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., which came to be rejected by the Ld. Magistrate -- Said order was not assailed by the complainant -- Thereafter he filed a private complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. which was pending before the Ld. Magistrate -- Despite the above, he filed a writ petition before the High Court, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law -- High Court ought to have closed the proceedings – For settling a civil dispute, the criminal complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of law -- Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 4.1-4.3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 506, 120-B/34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(2) -- Cheating and forgery – Acquittal of – Leave to appeal -- Accused are Sarpanch and her husband -- Main allegation against the respondents/accused is that they had affixed the thumb impressions in the muster-roll regarding disbursement of the amount of Rs. 4212/- in August and Rs. 2268/- in October – Muster-roll Ex. P1, was prepared by the Gram Sachiv -- All the Panches of the Gram Panchayat had signed the said muster-roll -- Other members of the Gram Panchayat, who were signatories to the muster-roll (Ex. P1), had not been arrayed as accused -- Even complainant had also put his thumb impressions on the said muster-roll -- On the complaint moved by the complainant, the Deputy Commissioner, exonerated of the charges levelled against them -- Even  as per the FSL report, the thumb impressions were not matchable – Appellate court acquitted the respondents – Leave to appeal declined.

(Para 12-17)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 379-B, 506, 148 & 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Attempt to murder – Snatching case -- Compromise quashing of FIR – Although the FIR involves Section 307 IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act, however, the fact of the case will show that the alleged weapon recovered in the case is licensed gun of the petitioner and the injury allegedly caused to the injured/witness was not that much serious, therefore, the FIR u/s 307 IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act can be quashed on the basis of compromise -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive -- It will be in the interest of justice, if the settlement reached between the parties is accepted -- FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the present petitioner.

(Para 8,9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 279, 304-A – Death by negligent driving – Conviction u/s 279/304-A IPC for 1 year – Petitioner has already undergone 4 months and 11 days of actual sentence – Petitioner is a professional driver never been convicted in any other such case -- He is a first time offender – He is on bail since 29.11.2011 -- Now sending the petitioner behind bar at this stage, would be very harsh and inequitable -- Petitioner-driver was also injured in the same accident -- Sentence awarded reduced to already undergone.

(Para 4, 7-9)