Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 417, 506 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape case -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Perusal of the FIR goes to show that this is a case of physical intimacy between two consenting adults -- Complainant, who was of the age of 29 years at the relevant time in the year 2019 had only alleged that she had been allured by the accused/petitioner on the proposition of marriage -- It was never her case that at any time any actual force was resorted to on behalf of the petitioner – Complainant has herself compromised the dispute with the petitioner/accused -- F.I.R with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, quashed qua the petitioner.

(Para 2, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 439 – Acquittal of co-accused – Regular bail for proclaimed offender/Petitioner -- Contention that main accused was arrested and acquitted, under the circumstances, no case against the present petitioner is sustainable and he deserves to be granted the concession of regular bail -- Without going into the merits of the case, petition allowed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 8-13)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case -- Warrant remained unexecuted as accused-petitioner shifted – Proclamation on same address – Legality of – FIR u/s 174A of IPC – Sustainability of -- Without any basis, the Court formed an opinion that the petitioner is intentionally avoiding service and that he is either absconding or concealing himself -- Rather the Court was duty bound to ask the complainant to furnish his fresh address and ensure that the petitioner was duly served before commencing with the coercive process -- Held, trial Court was not required to invoke the provisions of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. -- Declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed person, and the consequent registration of the impugned FIR cannot be sustained.

(Para 10-12)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed person – Settlement between parties – Quashing of FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Entire amount of the cheque in dispute stands paid -- Complainant does not have any objection, in case, the impugned order and FIR are quashed -- Once there is an amicable settlement between the parties and the main petition u/s 138 of N.I. Act, wherein accused was declared as a proclaimed person, stands withdrawn, proceedings u/s 174-A IPC cannot be permitted to continue -- Impugned order and FIR u/s 174-A, IPC quashed along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

(Para 13, 14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 336, (307 dropped) -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Compromise quashing of FIR – Held, in decision, based on compromise, none of the parties is a loser, rather, it brings peace and harmony between the parties to a dispute, but also restores tranquility in the society – After considering the nature of offences and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, continuance of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility, as the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak – FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are quashed.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 306, 116 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Abetment to suicide – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably – Compromise is in interest of peace and tranquility in the society and for such like reasons high Court can quash the FIR and ancillary proceedings exercising power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- Petition allowed and the FIR along with ancillary proceedings quashed.

(Para 7-9)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 396 -- Dacoity with murder -- Acquittal in – No test identification parade – Accused identified first time in court – Finger prints at place of occurrence – Value of – Child eye witness 5 years old (PW5) -- Both accused were unknown faces to PW5, and were not subjected to any Test Identification -- Apart from identification by PW5 in Court for the first time, there is no other material to establish their presence -- Thus, even if Court accept that fingerprints lifted from the house of the deceased could be associated with the said two accused, that by itself, in the absence of any substantive piece of evidence, cannot be made the basis of their conviction -- These accused are therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt -- Orders of conviction and sentence recorded against them set aside.

(Para 16, 35)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8, 27, 118, 134 -- Child witness – Corroboration of -- Perspective from which the evidence of a child witness is to be considered -- “corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence” is a well-accepted principle.

(Para 22)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 396 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8, 27, 118, 134 -- Dacoity with murder -- Acquittal in – 5 year old Child eye witness -- A chhuri or knife was said to have been recovered upon being pointed by accused/HO -- In the absence of any memorandum, the trial court rejected the theory that such recovery would be admissible u/s 27 of the Act -- It was however observed that such recovery would be admissible u/s 8 of the Act -- Not enough to sustain the finding of guilt -- PW-2 in his cross-examination reveals that he made no attempts to talk to the police though he asserted in his examination-in-chief that in the morning he was sure that the culprits were accused/ HO and his associates, version given by PW2 is, therefore, not free from doubt -- Evidence of PW2 also contains inherent inconsistencies -- Sample fingerprints of accused H.O. did not match with any of the fingerprints taken from the house of the deceased -- With the acquittal of all the accused in respect of offences punishable u/s 412 IPC and under the Arms Act, there is no other material pointing towards the involvement of accused/HO – Court do not find the material on record sufficient to record conviction of accused/ HO for the offence u/s 396 IPC -- Benefit of doubt given.

(Para 26-28)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed offender – Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A of IPC – Petitioner had challenged the order, whereby he was declared as proclaimed offender and he was allowed interim bail and later the petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous as the petitioner had appeared before the trial Court and had been granted bail – Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner u/s 174-A would be nothing but an abuse of process of law – Petition allowed and FIR u/s 174-A IPC and all consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 452, 323, 148 & 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- House trespass – Compromise quashing of FIR – Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court, after recording the statements of the parties qua the execution and veracity of the alleged compromise furnished the report – FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 2-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Kidnapping case -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Parties got their statements recorded and Ld. Magistrate submitted report to the effect that the compromise is genuine – None has put in appearance on behalf of complainant party but no prejudice would be caused to them as they have already made a joint statement with regard to compromise before Ld. Magistrate – FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise.

(Para 2-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(N) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape 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 -- Petition allowed and FIR and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, qua the petitioner, ordered to be quashed.

(Para 10,11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(N) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape case – Compromise quashing of FIR – Inherent powers of High Court – Petitioner married prosecutrix/complainant-respondent and now they are leading happy married life -- State has objected to the aforesaid course, but in the interest of justice and also to prevent unnecessary continuation of criminal proceedings, Court viewed that inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised in order to achieve ends of justice -- FIR as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, quashed.

(Para 3, 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 370, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Trafficking of person -- Compromise quashing of FIR – Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue – Petition allowed, FIR and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, quashed.

(Para 10, 18, 19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 382, 341, 506, 427, 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 – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Incident pertains to the year 2012 -- No injury was sustained by any of the parties – It is a fit case in which the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed – Petition allowed, FIR along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 5-9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 149, 323, 354-D, 506 – Stalking -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Parties had appeared before learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate and got recorded their statements regarding compromise -- Petition allowed -- FIR along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 6-9)

Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972), Section 2, 9, 11, 12, 39A, 49A, 51, Schedule I, II, III, IV -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Offence under Wildlife Protection Act – Quashing of complaint by High Court – Challenge to – In case a person hunts any of the wild animals which are included in Schedule I to IV, it becomes an offence inviting the penalty under Section 51 of the Act, 1972 -- Veterinary Surgeon has identified the Turtle as ‘Indian Flap Shell (Lissemy’s Punctata)’ whereas the Turtle which is included in Part II of Schedule I of the Act, 1972 is “Indian Soft-shelled Turtle (Lissemys punctata punctata).”  -- Although Lissemys punctata is included in Part II of Schedule I of the Act, however, the Turtle which has been seized is not that which is included in Part II of Schedule I -- Turtle seized is not included in Schedule I Part II and the Turtle having already been freed on the second day of its seizure – Held, High Court did not commit any error in quashing the criminal proceedings registered for Wild Life offences -- No good ground to interfere with the order of the High Court by which the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(Para 9-14)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354/354-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Sexual assault with minor – Compromise quashing of FIR – Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, specifically opined that the parties have entered into compromise voluntarily without there being any pressure, coercion or undue influence -- FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom quashed qua the petitioner.

(Para 1-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A, 420 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Proclaimed person -- Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A IPC -- Complaint u/s 138, 142 NI Act, 420 IPC compromised between the parties and the complainant has withdrawn the complaint – Held, continuation of the proceedings including the FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law -- Petition allowed, FIR u/s 174-A of IPC as well as all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, quashed.

(Para 7-9)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – POCSO matter – Compromise quashing of FIR – Keeping in view the fact of dispute having been amicably settled, petition allowed -- FIR along with ancillary proceedings quashed.

(Para 6-11)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 -- Murder case -- Acquittal of appellant – Conviction by Trial Court affirmed by High Court – Challenge to -- Test Identification parade unworthy  – Forensic evidence withheld – Identification of accused by wearing of lungi – Un-natural behaviour of eye-witness -- Principle in criminal law which propagates that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to their innocence, the view favourable to the accused should be adopted -- Infirmities in the prosecution evidence, made out a case for interference -- Appeal allowed, judgment of trial Court as also of High Court set aside.

(Para 1, 8-16)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 114(g) – Adverse inference – Co-accused acquitted -- No chemical analyst report, relevant forensic evidence for the seized shirt of co-accused withheld by the prosecution -- When such vital forensic evidence is kept away, an adverse inference will have to be drawn against the prosecution.

(Para 8.2)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 162 -- Test Identification Parade – Presence of Police – Identity by lungis -- Test Identification evidence (YIP) is not substantive piece of evidence but can only be used, in corroboration of statements in Court -- Major flaw was the presence of the police during the exercise, resultant communications tantamount to statements made by the identifiers to a police officer in course of investigation and they fall within the ban of section 162 of the Code -- Pahchan patra of the TIP mentions that three lungis were presented, the related witness was shown only one lungi for identification -- Such infirmities would render the TIP unworthy of acceptance, for supporting the prosecution.

(Para 10,11)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 -- Murder case -- Unnatural behaviour of the eye-witness – He was known to the deceased and claimed to have seen the assault -- He did not take any pro-active steps in the matter to either report to the police or inform any of the family members -- Such conduct of the eyewitness is contrary to human nature – His testimony deserves to be discarded.

(Para 14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 452, 120-B and 34 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 27 – Attempt to murder – Compromise quashing of FIR – Report of JMIC that statements of the parties were recorded which indicates that the compromise is genuine, without any coercion or undue influence -- Inherent jurisdiction of u/s 482 Cr.P.C. exercised so as to secure the ends of justice -- Continuation of the prosecution would result in sheer abuse of process of law – FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom ordered to be quashed – Petition allowed.

(Para 1-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 27 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 134 -- Murder case -- Conviction by Trial Court affirmed by High Court -- Sole eye-witness – Reliance upon -- Acquittal of accused -- There are inherent improbabilities in the prosecution story and the conduct of eye witness is inconsistent with ordinary course of human nature – It would not be safe to convict the appellants upon the uncorroborated testimony of the sole eye witness -- Incident does not appear to have happened in the manner in which the prosecution wants the Court to believe it had happened -- Since, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt the appellants therefore must be given benefit of doubt -- Impugned orders of the Courts below set aside -- Appellants are directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

(Para 32-35)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case -- Complaint u/s 138 N.I. Act withdrawn – Order declaring proclaimed person -- FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Sustainability of -- 'No Due Certificate' issued by the Bank shows that the entire loan amount outstanding in the name of petitioner stood cleared – Thereupon, the Bank withdrew the complaint -- In such a situation, neither the impugned order nor the consequential FIR can be sustained -- Continuation of proceedings u/s 174-A, IPC shall be nothing but an abuse of process of law – Petition allowed, impugned order and the FIR quashed alongwith all subsequent proceedings.

(Para 4, 10-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A, 406 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of FIR – Matrimonial dispute/ Dowry case – Compromise between the parties -- 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 406 and 498-A IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed subject to payment of total costs of Rs.15,000/- by the petitioners with the Bar Association of High Court.

(Para 9-11)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 – Suicide by wife – Acquittal of husband -- In order to give the finding of abetment u/s 107 IPC, the accused should instigate a person either by act of omission or commission and only then, a case of abetment is made out -- No direct evidence of cruelty against the husband or the in-laws -- Nothing to show which particular hope or expectation of the deceased was frustrated by the husband -- Evidence is also lacking on wilful neglect of the appellant, which led to the suicidal death -- Contrary evidence available to suggest that care and treatment was given to the deceased in the matrimonial home and in the hospital, and during the three years of marriage, there was no instance of maltreatment, attributable to dowry demand -- Demand of Rs. 20,000/- was a “cash loan” -- Loan may have been sought by the accused which could not be given -- But there is nothing to show that the deceased was harassed on this count, in the matrimonial home – Held, it is difficult to conclude that deceased was pushed to commit suicide by the circumstances or atmosphere created by the appellant -- In the absence of evidence, conjectures cannot be drawn that she was pushed to take her life, by the circumstances and atmosphere in the matrimonial home -- Conviction u/s 306 IPC is set aside and quashed.

(Para 10, 11, 21)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 – Suicide by wife – Acquittal of husband -- Mens-rea -- To prove the offence of abetment, as specified u/s 107 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability -- In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that accused had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased -- Ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous -- Trial Court as well as the High Court never examined whether appellant had the mens rea for the crime, he is held to have committed -- Trial Court and the High Court speculated on the unnatural death and without any evidence concluded only through conjectures, that the appellant is guilty of abetting the suicide of his wife – Conviction u/s 306 IPC is set aside and quashed.

(Para 15, 19-21)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 419, 420, 447, 448, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Compromise quashing of FIR – JMIC submitted report which indicates that the parties appeared before him and got recorded their respective statements with regard to the validity of the compromise, which is genuine, voluntarily and without coercion or undue influence -- Petition allowed, FIR alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed subject to depositing the costs of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioner with the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh.

(Para 4-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – No false promise of marriage – Physical relationship on pretext of marriage -- Allegation of rape -- Acquittal of accused -- Appellant did not make any false promise or intentional misrepresentation of marriage leading to establishment of physical relationship -- Prosecutrix was herself aware of the obstacles because of different religious beliefs -- An engagement ceremony was also held but unfortunately differences arose whether the marriage was to solemnised in the Church or in a Temple and ultimately failed -- Prosecutrix in her letters acknowledged that the appellant’s family was always very nice to her -- Conviction of the appellant unsustainable and set aside -- Appellant acquitted.

(Para 18-21)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person/offender – Quashing petition on the basis of compromise between the parties -- Summoning order and order declaring proclaimed person/offender quashed.

(Para 5-8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – Compromise in complaint -- Quashing of FIR -- Considering the fact that the complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act was compromised and later on the same was withdrawn -- Petitioner has also shown a bona fide cause for non-appearance before the trial Court -- Service was not effected at the ordinary place of residence of the petitioner and he was not aware of the said fact and immediately, on coming to know about the said order, the petitioner has compromised the matter with the complainant and the complaint u/s 138 of the Act was withdrawn later on -- Petition allowed FIR u/s Section 174-A IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof, quashed. Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another, 2017, (3) L.A.R. 584 relied.

(Para 5-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227 – Discharge of accused -- Central Vigilance Commission ordered that no offence under penal code was made out – A reading of Report shows that, at the highest, the appellant may be negligent without any criminal culpability -- In fact, the positive finding of the CVC that the appellant appears to be a victim – It is clear that in view of the detailed CVC order, the chances of conviction in a criminal trial involving the same facts appear to be bleak – Appellant discharge from the offences under the Penal Code.

(Para 6-8)

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954), Section 2(ix), 7(ii) -- Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Rule 32(e) -- Lot/Code/Batch Identification – Prosecution for misbranding being in violation of Rule 32(e), lacking in necessary declaration of lot/batch numbers – Barcode was available on the sample is not in dispute – Held, lot/code/batch identification to facilitate it being traced to the manufacturer are available in the barcode and which can be decoded by a barcode scanner -- No useful purpose is going to be served by allowing the present prosecution to continue and it will be an abuse of the process of law, causing sheer waste of time, causing unnecessary harassment to the appellant, if the prosecution is allowed to continue – Appeal allowed and prosecution of the appellant quashed.

(Para 2-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 324, 326, 34 – Compromise quashing of FIR -- As per the report, compromise reached between the parties seems to be genuine and without pressure or coercion -- Statements of the petitioners as well as the complainant are also on record which suggest that the matter stands amicably settled -- Petition allowed, FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed qua the petitioner(s). Gian Singh’s case 2012(4) RCR (Criminal) 543 and Narinder Singh’s case (2014) 6 SCC 466 relied.

(Para 3-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 379-A, 511 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Conviction for attempt to snatching handbag -- Appeal against conviction -- First informant failed to identify the appellant in the Court and made a significant improvement while deposing in the Court -- Merely because the mobile phone belonging to the appellant was taken into possession by the first informant and handed over to the police does not prove the involvement of the appellant – Onus to prove its case is on the prosecution – On the disclosure statement of the appellant, the motorcycle was recovered -- Mere recovery of the motorcycle does not connect the appellant to the offence, particularly when the first informant never identified the motorcycle -- Public Prosecutor did not get the motorcycle identified either from the first informant or the alleged eye witness -- Appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt -- Judgment of conviction followed by the order of sentence is set aside.

(Para 10-14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320(8), 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307, 341 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s) and 3 (2) (va) – Attempt to murder – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Injury on the person of complainant was found to be dangerous to life on the basis of CT scan showing fracture left temporoprital bone of skull – Offence u/s 307 IPC is aggravated form of original offence and the same was added after 05 months of registration of FIR -- Interpretation based on Section 320 IPC (Eightly) would also come in operation – Trial has not started so far as challan has not been presented in the present case – Both the parties have amicably resolved their differences – Chances of conviction of the petitioner would be very bleak -- In such a situation, inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised in view of guidelines in Narinder Singh and others's case 2014(2) RCR (Crl.) 482 -- Consequently petition allowed -- FIR as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, quashed.

(Para 13, 22-27)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 451, 323 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 75 – Attempt to murder – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Compromise will bring peace and harmony between the parties, FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua petitioner.

(Para 3, 8)

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)