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)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-A, 279 – Death by rash and negligence driving -- Conviction for 2 years – Petitioner has already undergone 7 months and 9 days -- Petitioner faced agony of trial for the last more than ten years -- Fit case, where the substantive sentence imposed upon the petitioner can be reduced to the period already undergone by him i.e. seven months -- Condition imposed that he would pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased. Saurabh Bakshi’s case 2015 (2) RCR (Criminal), 495 relied.

(Para 15, 16)

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 offender / person – F.I.R. u/s 174-A of IPC – Quashing of -- Petitioner has undergone substantive sentence in the proceedings u/s 138 of the N. I. Act -- Petitioner made the payment to the complainant who entered into a compromise with the petitioner after his claim was satisfied, sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by him – Both F.I.R.s registered u/s 174-A IPC are hereby quashed along with all the subsequent proceedings, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority.

(Para 9-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 304-A, 279, 337, 338, 427 – Death by rash and negligent driving -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Continuation of criminal proceedings between the parties would be an abuse of the process of law and the present compromise is for their benefit and will bring peace and harmony between them -- Petition allowed, FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner.

(Para 7, 8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Cheque bounce case -- DDR for misplace of cheque – Presumption u/s 139 of NI Act – Rebuttal of -- Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal -- DDR Ex.DW.1/A dated 18.9.2012, recorded on the statement of accused, he has averred that his cheque book of account of HDFC Bank has been misplaced containing cheques of the serial Nos.220856 to 220865 -- Number of present cheque is 220861 -- DDR has been registered even before the advancement of loan as stated by the complainant -- Presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act has been duly rebutted – No ground to grant leave to appeal.

(Para 8-11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 30 -- Cheque bounce case – Void agreement – Presumption u/s 139 of NI Act – Rebuttal of -- Statement of account is not pertaining to any loan raised by the accused but the same is regarding chit fund/lottery system run by the complainant -- Transaction comes under the agreement by way of wager, which is void as per Section 30 of the Contract Act -- Both the parties were involved in chit fund/lottery system -- Presumption u/s 139 of Act can be rebutted by raising probable defence – Accused raised probable defence – Acquittal order, upheld.

(Para 10-12)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 173 -- Divorce by compromise – Criminal case not withdrawn by wife – Contempt petition dismissed – Quashing of FIR – Held, if the parties had arrived at a settlement and decided to withdraw the cases filed by each of the parties against the other, the compromise ought to be effectuated in complete sense – Leaving aside the technicalities, Supreme Court deemed it appropriate to quash the proceedings which were initiated at the instance of the respondent-wife -- Further proceedings in said FIR now stand quashed.

(Para 8)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13-B, 25 – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Divorce by compromise – Right of daughter for maintenance etc. -- Waiver of – Permissibility of -- As per term 6 of Consent Terms, It was certainly open to the wife to give up any claim so far as maintenance or permanent alimony or stridhan but she could not have given up the rights which vest in the daughter insofar as maintenance and other issues are concerned -- By exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, Clause (6) of the Consent Terms set-aside.

(Para 8,9)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118(a), 139 -- Signature not denied on cheque -- Legally enforceable liability – Presumption of – Rebuttal of – Presumption of Complainant being holder of cheque and the signature on the cheque having not been denied by the accused, presumption shall be drawn that cheque was issued for the discharge of any debt or other liability – Presumption u/s 139 is a rebuttable presumption.

(Para 10)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118(a), 139 -- Legally enforceable liability – Presumption of – Rebuttal of – Law summarised in following manner:-

(i)      Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability.

(ii)     The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities.

(iii)    To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely.

(iv)    That it is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box in support of his defence, Section 139 imposed an evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden.

(v)     It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence.

(Para 23)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118(a), 139 -- Legal enforceable liability – Financial capacity – Onus of proof – Acquittal of accused -- During cross-examination, when financial capacity to pay Rs.6 lakhs to the accused was questioned, there was no satisfactory reply given by the complainant -- Evidence on record, thus, is a probable defence on behalf of the accused, which shifted the burden on the complainant to prove his financial capacity and other facts – Order acquitting the accused by Trial Court, upheld.

(Para 24-29)

D. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118(a), 139 -- Legal enforceable liability – Financial capacity – Onus of proof – Acquittal of accused -- During the period from 2009 to November, 2011, amount of Rs.18 lakhs was given by the complainant to different persons including the accused, which put a heavy burden to prove the financial capacity when it was questioned on behalf of the accused -- It was incumbent on the complainant to have explained his financial capacity -- Court cannot insist on a person to lead negative evidence -- Order acquitting the accused by Trial Court, upheld.

(Para 25-28)

A. Constitution of India, Article 311 -- Criminal case against employee – Acquittal from -- Back wages – Right of -- If an employee is involved in embezzlement of funds or is found indulging in demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the employer cannot be mulcted with full back wages on the acquittal of the person by a criminal Court, unless it is found that the prosecution is malicious.

(Para 6)

B. Constitution of India, Article 311 -- Criminal case against employee – Suspension of employees -- Dropping of proceedings – Delay in re-instatement -- Back Salary – Right of --  Appellant suspended on 23.10.1979 -- Disciplinary proceedings were dropped on 21.03.1983 --  Suspension was revoked on 21.10.1987 and re-instated -- By virtue of the disciplinary proceedings being dropped, the Appellant becomes entitled to claim full salary for the period from the date of his suspension till the date of closure of the departmental inquiry -- Appellant ought to have been reinstated immediately thereafter unless a fresh order was passed, placing him under suspension during the pendency of the criminal trial -- Held, Appellant is entitled for full wages from 23.10.1979 to 21.10.1987 after adjustment of the amounts already paid towards subsistence allowance.

(Para 7)

C. Constitution of India, Article 311 -- Conviction in Criminal case – Dismissal of employee – Acquittal by Appellate court – Delay in re-instatement -- Back Salary – Right of --  Appellant shall be entitled for back wages only from the date of acquittal on 31.08.2001, till the date of his reinstatement on 20.01.2003.

(Para 1, 7, 8)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 (2)(n) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 (3) -- Rape case – Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal -- Prosecutrix was major and educated girl -- She was chatting with the respondent/accused on mobile despite the fact that prosecutrix was knowing well that accused was married man and having three children -- Prosecutrix-'X' remained in touch with the respondent-accused for a sufficient long time about two years even after commission of rape -- Categorically admitted photographs that of her with accused, when she was in regular relationship with accused and she also travelled with accused in his car and also got clicked the photographs with accused -- Past conduct of the family of the prosecutrix, whereby her family is facing criminal cases besides herself, are also ample evidence to disapprove the case of prosecution – Acquittal order passed by Trial court affirmed.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 (3) – Acquittal by Trial Court -- – Leave to appeal -- It is a settled position that there have to be strong, cogent and compelling reasons to set aside acquittal of the accused -- In case of acquittal, there is a double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, it stands reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by acquittal by the trial Court.

(Para 7)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 (2)(n) – Rape – Consensual physical relationship -- Acknowledged consensual physical relationship does not constitute the offence of rape.

(Para 7)

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 8,12, 25 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Custody of children -- Suicide by wife – FIR u/s 306 IPC against husband – Acquittal of husband – Where pursuant to the suicide of the mother, without knowing the circumstances leading to the death and further without waiting for the outcome of the criminal trial, if the minors are put in the custody of the maternal grandparents, they would always end up in believing anything against the father -- As of now, the children are of the age of 11 years and 8 years respectively -- Trial Court’s finding that the respondent-father should be allowed to exercise his right of custody of the children, cannot be found fault with.

(Para 13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 452/ Sections 323, 324, 342, 148, 149 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of FIR – Compromise between parties – Version cross-version case – Both FIR all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-, per petition.

(Para 9, 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 34, 325, 324 (379-B deleted) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Compromise quashing of FIR – Case is at the initial stage, it would be in the interest and justice that parties are allowed to compromise the matter – Petition accepted, consequently, the impugned DDR u/s 323, 34, 379-B IPC (Sections 379-B IPC deleted later on and Section 325 IPC added later on) in FIR u/s 324, 323, 34 of IPC and all other consequential proceedings arising thereto are quashed.

(Para 8, 9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 (4) -- Acquittal in cheque bounce case – Leave to appeal -- Arbitration proceedings – Non-disclosure of issuance of cheque in arbitration matter -- Trial Court has taken one of the two possible views and High Court while exercising the powers in appeal against acquittal cannot substitute its views with the view taken by learned Magistrate.

(Para 4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Acquittal in Cheque bounce case -- Security cheque presented before agreed date – Rs. 7,00,000/- is to be paid in 30 installments, starting from 18.1.2012 -- If till said date, entire amount is not returned, complainant will have right to present cheque given as security, before bank – Thirty months were to lapse on 18.7.2014 – Complainant presented cheque in question before bank on 25.10.2012 – Held, at the time of presentation of cheque before bank, there was no legally enforcement debtor liability – Complainant had received certain amounts, which has not been mentioned in his complainant and what is balance – Offence u/s 138 is not made out.

(Para 6)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Legally enforceable liability – Rebuttal of presumption -- Standard of proof for rebuttal of the presumption u/s 139 of the Act is guided by a preponderance of probabilities.

(Para 10)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Loan of Rs.15 lacs -- Legal enforceable liability – Presumption of -- Rebuttal of -- Defence was that the cheque was issued to the complainant on an assurance of a loan which would be obtained from a financial institution – Entire amount alleged to have been paid without obtaining a receipt or document evidencing the payment of the amount – Complainant failed to establish the source of funds -- Nothing was stated by the complainant in regard to the fate of the earlier two cheques which were allegedly issued by the accused -- Non-disclosure of the facts pertaining to the earlier two cheques, and the steps, if any, taken for recovery was again a material consideration which indicated that there was a doubt in regard to the transaction – Presumption stands rebutted -- Order of acquittal passed by the first appellate court was justified.

(Para 13-15)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque by company – Quashing of complaint -- Cheque singed by Director of company – Demand notice to Director – Complaint against Director – Company not impleaded as party/ accused -- Maintainability of complaint – Held, in the absence of the company being arraigned as an accused, a complaint against the appellant was not maintainable – In the absence of a notice of demand being served on the company and without compliance with the proviso to Section 138, the High Court was in error in holding that the company could now be arraigned as an accused – High Court was in error in rejecting the petition u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. – Appeal allowed, Complaint quashed.

(Para 14-18)