Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail -- Respondent granted anticipatory bail subject to deposit of Rs. 75,000/- on offer made by him – Co-accused paid Rs.6,00,000/- to the petitioner to get concession of bail – Held, process of criminal law cannot be utilised for arm-twisting and money recovery, particularly while opposing the prayer for bail -- Recovery of money is essentially within the realm of civil proceedings – Criminal proceedings are being prosecuted only as money recovery proceedings -- Hence, the order granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents stands affirmed but, the condition therein, of payment of Rs.75,000/- by the respondent No.2, stands annulled.

(Para 10-16)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail -- Rape -- Petitioner married the complainant though he had not obtained a divorce from a prior marriage – Charge-sheet submitted, after investigation – Interim stay confirmed -- In the event of the arrest, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 1-5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 439 -- Intent of arrest -- Reason of denial of bail are:

– to secure the appearance of the accused at the time of trial;

– to  allay possibility of repeating of offence & jeopardising own life on account of grim prospect of being convicted;

-- to avoid possibility of tampering of evidence and security of witnesses who may be pressurised or maltreated.

(Para 5)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 (2) (N), 343, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Constitution of India, Article 19(1), 21 -- POCSO case – Rape – Regular bail – Detention or arrest not only deprives a person from his fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 but also freedom guaranteed by article 19(1) of our Constitution – Keeping in mind, the Petitioner is in custody since 27.02.2021, police report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C. stands filed and charges stand framed, prosecution stands examined as well cross-examined, out of total 24 witnesses till date 06 have been examined, thus, there is abysmally law possibility of conclusion of trial in near future, the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case, petitioner is permanent resident of District Sirsa and have family members and prosecution has not led any convincing/plausible documentary or oral evidence indicating possibility of petitioner being flee from justice or tempering the evidences or winning over/threatening the witnesses, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6, 7)

A. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12 – Notice without Domestic incident report -- Domestic incident report is not mandatory -- Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has not committed any illegality or irregularity by issuing notice to the petitioner without waiting for the report of Protection Officer.

(Para 13)

B. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125, 127 -- Acquittal u/s 498A IPC – Award of maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. – Acquittal u/s 498A IPC will not create a bar for his wife to seek relief under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 -- Payment of maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. or other application u/s 127 Cr.P.C. will not effect the application filed u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as the respondent can claim maintenance under the one case subject to adjustment of maintenance already paid by him.

(Para 14, 15)

C. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12, 13 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468 – Application u/s 12 of DV Act, 2005 after more than 8 years – Limitation -- Violation of any order passed under the DV Act is punishable u/s 13 of D.V. Act, 2005 -- Mere filing of complaint u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act not barred u/s 468 Cr.P.C -- This section will come into operation when any order passed u/s 12 of the Act is violated – Petition seeking quashing of complaint u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 dismissed. Kamatchi’s case 2022(2) L.A.R. 222 = (2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16975 relied.

(Para 16-19)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) – Leave to appeal -- Granting of special leave to appeal against acquittal is a discretionary power.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 452, 506, 166, 167 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 12 -- Rape -- Cancellation report in FIR –  Ld. JMIC dismissed the complaint -- Leave to appeal -- Applicant/ prosecutrix was alleged to be raped on 07.01.2016 and 10.02.2016 – She opted to remain silent after alleged incident of 07.01.2016 and approached police on 10.02.2016 i.e. after second incident -- There is gap of one month between first incident and second incident -- Applicant attempted to implicate police officials who did not agree with her complaint -- MLR was not supporting the case of the applicant -- No injury was found over the body of the applicant -- Complainant/applicant failed to make out prima facie case warranting summoning of alleged accused – There is no infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order whereby trial Court has dismissed the complaint -- Permission for special leave to appeal rejected.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366, 342, 376 (2) (i) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 6, 17 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody for a period of 03 years, 04 months and 21 days and not involved in any other case -- Victim has not given any history with regard to penetrative sexual assault during the course of her medical examination -- Victim is not coming forth to depose in the trial Court despite substantial number of adjournments -- Statement of the mother of the victim during the course of trial, that the victim has eloped with some boy on 07.02.2021 – Held, petitioner cannot be incarcerated for a long period of time, particularly, only on the score that the victim is not putting appearance in the trial Court -- Conclusion of trial may take some more time -- Petition allowed and petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(n), 323 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 10, 12 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape – Regular bail -- Physical relation on pretext of marriage -- Petitioner and the prosecutrix were in relationship for a period of 11 years -- It will remain a debatable and moot point as to whether the petitioner was in consensual relationship with the prosecutrix or it was on the basis of false promise to solemnize marriage -- Allegations with regard to sexual assault upon the minor daughter of the prosecutrix have emerged at a subsequent stage to the registration of the FIR -- Petitioner is in custody for a period of 05 months and 16 days and is not involved in any other case – Out of 18 witnesses till date no witness has been examined -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take some time -- Sufficient mitigating circumstances are made out to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376B, 376(2)(N), 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Rape – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner is a doctor in a government hospital where the complainant was allegedly working as a nurse -- FIR indicates that parties were in a physical relationship since May 2016 -- FIR was lodged in October 2017 -- In the facts and circumstances of the case, custodial interrogation is not required – Direction given in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail.

(Para 1-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Dowry death – Regular bail to mother-in-law – Deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage – As per allegations in the FIR itself on the day of death, the petitioner had informed the complainant about the deceased having locked herself inside the room – After the occurrence the in-laws had shifted the deceased to the hospital – Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the presumption u/s 113-B of Evidence Act is attracted or not would be subject to the outcome of the trial – Out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, 3 witnesses have been examined – Petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(Para 1,7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 304-B, 120-B, 302, 406 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 439 -- Murder – Dowry death – Regular bail to mother-in-law -- Petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased and is in custody for a period of 01 years, 08 months and 27 days -- It will be debatable and moot point during the course of trial as to whether it was a case of ante-mortem strangulation or suicidal hanging -- Out of 25, examination-in-chief of only one witness has been recorded and thereafter, an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C has been moved -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take some time and no fruitful purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner in further custody -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 498-A, 304-B, 406, 302, 34, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Conviction u/s 306 IPC -- Appeal by complainant seeking conviction for dowry death/ murder -- A young girl expired in less than 02 years after her marriage by suicide -- The mental state of the father can very well be imagined -- However, this alone would not be sufficient to put the blame on respondents No.2 and 3 (husband and mother-in-law) and to fasten criminal liability, the prosecution would be required to prove its case against them beyond reasonable doubt – No complaint was ever made to any authority with regard to the torture being meted out to deceased, no Panchayat was ever convened and no other step was taken – Showed feigned ignorance in cross-examination about her medical condition which was disclosed by DW1/ Doctor, as per whom deceased remained admitted in hospital till 27.07.2018 on account of pregnancy in her fallopian tube for which she had to undergo surgery -- Expenses for the surgery were borne by respondent No.3 and his family -- The ld. trial Court, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that the ingredients of Sections 304-B or 302 IPC and even those of Sections 406 and 498-A IPC did not stand fulfilled – No perversity in the view taken by the trial Court either on facts or on law and the impugned judgment is well reasoned -- It is now well settled that Courts have to be extremely careful while hearing appeals against acquittal and the judgments of acquittal should not be interfered with lightly – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 8-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Dowry death – Regular bail to husband -- Marriage in May, 2014, wife committed suicide on 4th March, 2021 – In FIR allegations pertaining to harassment caused to the deceased on account of demand of dowry -- Material witnesses examined -- Two minor children are with the grandparents -- Allegations regarding demand of dowry are general in nature -- In the cross-examination, complainant deposed that he did not remember any specific date of harassment caused or demand of dowry made – No cash and vehicle was given in the marriage -- Out of 15 prosecution witnesses, 03 witnesses examined -- Nothing on record to show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents -- Court cannot ignore the fact that there are two minor children whose future is also at stake – Bail allowed.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 19(1), 21, 27 – Reporting of offence -- Prompt and proper reporting of is of utmost importance -- Its failure on coming to know about the commission of any offence thereunder would defeat the very purpose and object of the Act -- Medical examination of the victim as also the accused would give many important clues in a case that falls under the POCSO Act – Clothes of the parties would also offer very reliable evidence in cases of rape – If it was committed by an unknown person, it would also enable the investigating agency to commence investigation without wasting time and ultimately to secure the arrest and medical examination of the culprit – Non-reporting of sexual assault against a minor child despite knowledge is a serious crime and more often than not, it is an attempt to shield the offenders of the crime of sexual assault -- A conjoint reading of Sections 19(1) and 21 of POCSO Act, such persons are also liable to be proceeded with, in accordance with law.

(Para 15, 22)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45 – Medical evidence in sexual offences -- In relation to sexual offences medical evidence has much corroborative value.

(Para 15)

C. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- POCSO case – Quashing of FIR and charge-sheet – Inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- If FIR and the materials collected disclose a cognizable offence and the final report filed u/s 173(2), Cr.P.C. on completion of investigation based on it would reveal that the ingredients to constitute an offence under the POCSO Act and a prima facie case against the persons named therein as accused, the truthfulness, sufficiency or admissibility of the evidence are not matters falling within the purview of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and undoubtedly they are matters to be done by the Trial Court at the time of trial.

(Para 18)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 164 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 145, 157 – Evidential value of statement u/s 161,  164 Cr.P.C. – Statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. are inadmissible in evidence and its use is limited for the purposes as provided under Sections 145 and 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -- As a matter of fact, statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. can also be used only for such purposes.

(Para 20)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 164-A, 173 – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Rape case Guidelines -- Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police vs. Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna, (2014) 8 SCC 913 exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution issued interim directions in the form of mandamus to all the Police Stations-in-Charge in the entire country to follow:

“10.1. Upon receipt of information relating to the commission of offence of rape, the investigating officer shall make immediate steps to take the victim to any Metropolitan/preferably Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of recording her statement under Section 164 CrPC. A copy of the statement under Section 164 CrPC should be handed over to the investigating officer immediately with a specific direction that the contents of such statement under Section 164 CrPC should not be disclosed to any person till charge-sheet/report under Section 173 CrPC is filed.

10.2. The investigating officer shall as far as possible take the victim to the nearest Lady Metropolitan/preferably Lady Judicial Magistrate.

10.3. The investigating officer shall record specifically the date and the time at which he learnt about the commission of the offence of rape and the date and time at which he took the victim to the Metropolitan/preferably Lady Judicial Magistrate as aforesaid.

10.4. If there is any delay exceeding 24 hours in taking the victim to the Magistrate, the investigating officer should record the reasons for the same in the case diary and hand over a copy of the same to the Magistrate.

10.5. Medical examination of the victim : Section 164-A CrPC inserted by Act 25 of 2005 in CrPC imposes an obligation on the part of investigating officer to get the victim of the rape immediately medically examined. A copy of the report of such medical examination should be immediately handed over to the Magistrate who records the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC.”

Supreme Court gave suggestion to every High Court that the appropriate modifications/amendments be made to the Criminal Practice/Trial Rules incorporating provisions consistent with the directions issued in the decisions in Shivanna’s case (2014) 8 SCC 913.

(Para 1-7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused -- Power of Court -- Power u/s 319 Cr.P.c. is discretionary and extra ordinary, which is to be exercised very sparingly only when strong and cogent evidence has been led against a person, who is sought to be summoned -- Court must be satisfied from the evidence collected during the enquiry or in the trial that the person sought to be summoned as an additional accused has committed an offence for which he deserves to be tried alongwith already arraigned accused.

(Para 7)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 3, 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – POCSO matter -- Rape -- Summoning of additional accused – In the complaint there is no allegation whatsoever against MK (sister of main accused/ JS) – Only reference in the FIR is that MK is the sister of JS and she used to talk with the prosecutrix on phone -- In the statement recorded u/s 164 of the Code, the prosecutrix stated that MK used to say that she wants that the prosecutrix should become her Bhabi (sister-in-law), and that the prosecutrix revealed about the incident to MK but she assured her that there is nothing to worry as JS would get married to her -- However, in her deposition, the prosecutrix has stated that, it was MK, who had called her on phone and forced her to accompany them on a trip, but when she reached the hotel, she found that MK was not present there – It is evident that there is a consistent change in the version of the incident by the prosecutrix to enmesh the sister of JS in the criminal case -- Parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh’s case (2014) 3 SCC 92 and Manjeet Singh’s case 2021 SCC Online 632 are not fulfilled and the order passed by the Trial Court declining the application for summoning MK does not call for any interference -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 8-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 34, 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 3, 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO matter – Rape – Regular bail -- Prosecutrix went missing from home on 10.01.2021 and was recovered on 25.01.2021 -- Petitioner is behind bars from 25.01.2021 -- Out of 17 prosecution witnesses, 10 examined including the complainant and the victim -- Nothing on record to show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents -- Allegations in the FIR by father that there were friendly relations between the petitioner and the victim which were not acceptable to them -- Trial of the case will take sufficient long time -- Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6, 7)

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7, 8, 9, 11 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354A(1)(i),(ii) & (iv), 354 A-(2) and 354-A(3) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 438 -- POCSO matter – Anticipatory bail –While granting bail High court observed “… Though on the one side, there is a possibility of such hugs and kisses being manifestations of affection by an uncle, one cannot ignore the possibility of such show of 'affections' being coloured by sexual overtones. However, those are all matters for investigation.” – Held, observations made are totally unwarranted and have been made overlooking the specific allegations contained in the FIR, duly supported with the Statement of the victim-girl child u/s 164 of the Code – High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction in granting protection against arrest, as the Investigating Officer deserves free-hand to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.

(Para 10, 11)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7, 8, 9, 11, 29 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354A(1)(i),(ii) & (iv), 354 A-(2) and 354-A(3) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- POCSO matter – Anticipatory bail –Victim-girl is traumatized to such a high degree that her academic pursuits have been adversely impacted alone, coupled with the legislative intent especially reflected through Section 29 of the POCSO Act, are sufficient to dissuade a Court from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in granting pre-arrest bail.

(Para 12)

C. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7, 8, 9, 11, 29 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354A(1)(i),(ii) & (iv), 354 A-(2) and 354-A(3) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- POCSO matter – Anticipatory bail -- Charge-sheet filed -- It will be unfair to presume that the Investigating Officer does not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the purpose of further investigation.

(Para 14)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Custodial interrogation -- In many anticipatory bail matters, one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted -- There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail -- Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail.

(Para 15)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 438 -- POCSO matter – Anticipatory bail – Prima facie case – Nature of offence -- Custodial interrogation -- There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail -- First and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused -- Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment -- Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail -- However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.

(Para 15

F. Binding precedent – Judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of High Court --  Decision of the Kerala High Court rendered in the Joy’s case (2019) 1 KLT 935 deals with Section 29 of the POCSO Act -- When the learned Judge decided the anticipatory bail application, the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of Joy was binding to him -- He could not have ignored a binding decision -- It is a different thing to say that if he may disagree with the view taken and accordingly refer it to a larger Bench.

(Para 16)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 120B, 323, 324 -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – FIR in matrimonial dispute --Anticipatory bail – Condition of ad-interim compensation of Rs.10 lacs in favour of wife – Legality of – Held, no reasonable justification for the High Court to call upon the appellant to submit a demand draft of Rs.10 lakhs in availing the benefit of pre-arrest bail -- Appeal allowed and the order passed by the High Court directing the appellant to deposit a Demand Draft of Rs. 10 Lakhs is hereby set aside.

(Para 2-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 377, 511 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8, 12 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – POCSO matter -- Attempt to do unnatural offence – Regular bail -- Undoubtedly, petitioner is found involved in unnatural and shameful activity, though, could not fully succeeded in his malicious aim -- Still considering the fact that both the material witnesses i.e. victim and the complainant have already been examined and petitioner, who is said to be of 54 years of age, is not involved in any other similar shameful act in his past – Petitioner is inside jail for the last more than 07 months -- Court deemed appropriate to release the petitioner on bail.

(Para 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – POCSO matter -- Rape – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Subsequent to the registration of the FIR and after attaining the age of majority, the petitioner has solemnized marriage with the victim/respondent no.3 -- FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed, however, qua the petitioner.

(Para 1-3, 13)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 157(1) -- Delay in forwarding FIR to Magistrate -- Effect of -- Delay in forwarding the FIR may certainly indicate the failure of one of the external checks to determine whether the FIR was manipulated later or whether it was registered either to fix someone other than the real culprit or to allow the real culprit to escape -- While every delay in forwarding the FIR may not necessarily be fatal to the case of the prosecution, Courts may be duty bound to see the effect of such delay on the investigation and even the creditworthiness of the investigation.

(Para 61)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 157(1) -- Delay in forwarding FIR to Magistrate – Effect of -- Section 157(1) of the Code requires the officer-in-charge of the police station to send the FIR, “forthwith” -- Delay in transmission of the FIR to the court, may not, per se, be fatal, without anything more -- But in the case on hand, the delay was not small -- FIR said to have been registered on 08.03.2012 was received by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 13.03.2012 -- It is true that no question was put in cross-examination to the Investigation Officer about this delay -- But the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is untrustworthy, particularly on the question of the origin and genesis of the first information report -- Therefore the inordinate delay in the FIR reaching the jurisdictional court assumes significance -- Word "forthwith' in Section 157(1) of the Code is to be understood in the context of the given facts and circumstances of each case and a straight-jacket formula cannot be applied in all cases -- But where ocular evidence is found to be unreliable and thus unacceptable, a long delay has to be taken note of by the Court.

(Para 61-66)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 157(1) -- Delay in forwarding FIR to Magistrate – Effect of -- Mandate of Section 157(1) of the Code being clear, the prosecution is expected to place on record the basic foundational facts, such as, the Officer who took the first information report to the jurisdictional court, the authority which directed such a course of action and the mode by which it was complied -- Explaining the delay is a different aspect than placing the material in compliance of the Code.

(Para 68)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 376 -- Rape with Murder – Medical examination of accused – Requirement of -- In cases where the victim of rape is alive and is in a position to testify in court, it may be possible for the prosecution to take a chance by not medically examining the accused -- But in cases where the victim is dead and the offence is sought to be established only by circumstantial evidence, medical evidence assumes great importance -- Failure of the prosecution to produce such evidence, despite there being no obstacle from the accused or anyone, will certainly create a gaping hole in the case of the prosecution and give rise to a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution -- Section 53A enables the prosecution to obtain a significant piece of evidence to prove the charge -- Failure of the prosecution in this case to subject the appellant to medical examination is certainly fatal to the prosecution case especially when the ocular evidence is found to be not trustworthy -- Failure to obtain the report of the Forensic Sciences Laboratory on the blood/semen stain on the salwar worn by the victim, compounds the failure of the prosecution.

(Para 80)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 376 -- Rape with Murder – Scrutiny of evidence – Acquittal of accused -- When the offence is heinous, the Court is required to put the material evidence under a higher scrutiny -- Sufficient care has not been taken in the assessment of the statements made by P.Ws. 1 to 3 by Trail Court and High Court -- No one spoke as to who sent the FIR to the court and when it was sent -- Strangely even the copy of the post-mortem report was admittedly received by SHO on the 13.03.2012 though the post mortem was conducted on the 09.03.2012 -- It was the same date on which the FIR reached the Court -- These factors certainly create a strong suspicion on the story as projected by the prosecution – By fixing culpability upon the appellant without any shred of evidence which will stand the scrutiny, the prosecution has done injustice to the appellant -- Court cannot make someone, a victim of injustice, to compensate for the injustice to the victim of a crime -- Appellant is so poor that he could not afford to engage a lawyer even in the Sessions Court, service of an advocate was provided as amicus -- In cases of such nature, the responsibility of the Court becomes more onerous – Court not convinced that the guilt of the appellant stood established beyond reasonable doubt -- Appeals allowed and the conviction and penalty are set aside -- Appellant shall be released forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other case.

(Para 83-85)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Recalling of witness -- In case the evidence sought to be brought on record is essential to the issue involved, the powers u/s 311 Cr.P.C. must be invoked.

(Para 1, 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 506 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Rape -- Recalling of witness – In cross-examination of the victim no question was put regarding the charge against the accused -- Though, change of counsel in a case cannot always be ground for recalling and re-examination of witness, more so, in cases of sexual offences, however, the facts and circumstances of each case have to be appreciated before deciding an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C.

(Para 12)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 506 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6, 33(5) – Rape -- Recalling of witness – Bar under 33(5) of POCSO Act -- Issue concerning determination of the age of the victim as well as cross-examination of the victim regarding the allegations leveled against the accused is essential, as only that can unfold the truth -- Fair trial demands that opportunity to defend the accused be afforded -- Section 33(5) cannot be read alone, as a balance of rights u/s 33(5) and Section 311 Cr.P.C. needs to be maintained -- Right to fair trial as well as the bar under Section 33(5) both need to be looked into while deciding such application, depending upon facts of each case – It is not a case of the prosecution that the witness has been repeatedly called for cross-examination -- Application moved on the first available opportunity to the accused/ applicant who, was in judicial custody -- Application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. allowed.

(Para 16-21)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 -- Rape -- Onus of proof -- In a case of grave charge of rape, the onus always lies on the prosecution to prove each of the ingredients of the offence, it seeks to establish and the onus never shifts.

(Para 5)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 452 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(3) -- Rape – Acquittal – Leave to appeal -- Victim alleged that the accused-respondent had gagged her mouth and had torn her clothes before committing the rape upon her -- Victim was a rustic and stoutly built lady and was well nourished -- It was at around 04.30 AM and normally in villages, it is the time for the villagers to wake up -- It is equally unbelievable that the accused-respondent would have sneaked in the house of the victim at such an hour without the consent of the victim -- Moreover, the victim was a grown up married lady and could not only have resisted his move, but could have also raised an alarm -- Victim did not suffer any injury -- Evidence led by the defence makes out that the victim was not having good relations with her husband but had shared a very close and intimate relationship with the respondent -- Father and husband of the victim were sleeping just adjoining the court-yard -- Even where the rape was allegedly committed, her children were sleeping and the story put forth by the prosecution appears to be doubtful – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 6-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 498A, 323, 354, 506, 509 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45 – FIR in matrimonial dispute – DNA profiling of children – Permissibility of -- Blood sampling of the children was directed, who were not parties to the proceeding nor were their status required to be examined in the complaint -- This raised doubt on their legitimacy of being borne to legally wedded parents -- Section 112 of the Evidence Act, also gives a protective cover from allegations of this nature -- Paternity of the children was not in question in the subject-proceeding -- Held, merely because something is permissible under the law cannot be directed as a matter of course to be performed particularly when a direction to that effect would be invasive to the physical autonomy of a person -- Such direction would violate the privacy right of the persons subjected to such tests and could be prejudicial to the future of the two children who were also sought to be brought within the ambit of the Trial Court’s direction – Appeal allowed, Order of the Trial Court and High Court set aside.

(Para 6-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 341, 342, 376(D) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 8 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(4)(w)(i) – POCSO matter – Regular bail – Ad-interim compensation as a ground -- High Court not adverted to the parameters of Section 439 Cr.P.C. which are required to be observed while granting or declining regular bail to an accused, especially when he is involved in a heinous crime -- Offer of payment of ad interim compensation to the victim cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail -- Impugned order set aside, High Court requested to hear and dispose of the bail application on merits within a period of three months -- Respondent ordered to be taken into custody and bail bond cancelled.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 377, 354, 406, 498A, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Unnatural offence – Matrimonial dispute – Compromise quashing of FIR – Where settlement has taken place, even the offence u/s 377 IPC can be compromised and FIR can be quashed as parties have to move ahead in life -- Offence u/s 354 IPC also allowed to be quashed to put an end to all bickering between the parties and allow them to begin a new chapter of their lives -- FIR for offences under Sections 406/498A/354/377/34 IPC and the proceedings emanating therefrom quashed.

(Para 1, 6)

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7, 8 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 – POCSO case – Age of victim – Determination of – Stage of case -- Proof or determination of age of the victim in a POCSO case is foundational and for such an important issue, the same can be raised at any stage of the lifetime of the case, even before the appellate forum -- Impugned judgment and sentence set aside and quashed -- Matter remanded to the court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), to determine the age of the victim and to pass the final order upon appreciation of evidence under the changed circumstances.

(Para 15-21)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7, 8 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 – Age of the victim – Determination of -- Nothing on record to indicate the actual age of the victim either by medical or documentary evidence -- Special Court directed to take up the exercise of determination of the age of the victim in accordance with Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 and to allow the parties to produce relevant documents, examine and cross-examine the witnesses and to be heard on the issue and thereafter to decide on the issue.

(Para 16-19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape – Consensual relationship – Quashing of FIR -- Parties chose to have physical relationship without marriage for a considerable period of time -- For some reason, the parties fell apart -- It can happen both before or after marriage -- Thereafter also three years passed when respondent No.2 decided to register a FIR -- Facts are so glaring as set out aforesaid that the court have no hesitation in quashing the FIR and bringing the proceedings to a close.

(Para 4)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 220 – Joint trial for more than one offence – One series of act -- Same transaction -- While pointing out that the question as to whether a series of acts are so connected together as to form the same transaction is purely a question of fact -- Core elements like proximity of time, unity or proximity of place, continuity of action and community of purpose or design, which are of relevant considerations and when these factors are applied to common sense and ordinary use of language, the vexed question of ‘same transaction’ could be reasonably determined.

(Para 20.3)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 220 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 504, 506, 376 – Rape – Threat and abuses – Joint trial for more than one offence – One series of act – Same transaction -- Alleged acts of sexual relationship took place at Delhi in the months of February and March, 2016 -- Other alleged acts of hurling abuses and extending threats in or around the month of November, 2016, which the appellant received over telephone at her village in Chamoli (Uttarakhand) – Acts in question were neither proximate in time nor proximate in place; they were not of continuity either -- No allegation of such an activity having continued later or having taken place at Chamoli or even any threat having been extended to the appellant to again submit to such an activity -- Alleged offence u/s 376 IPC and the other offences u/s 504 and 506 IPC do not fall within the ambit of ‘one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction’ for the purpose of trial together in terms of Section 220 CrPC -- Thus, the learned Sessions Judge, had rightly discharged the accused-respondent No. 2 of the offence under Section 376 IPC for want of territorial jurisdiction.

(Para 22.1-25)

C. Constitution of India, Article 20(2) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 300 – Acquittal of accused -- Double jeopardy – Accused having gone through the trial in relation to offences u/s 504 and 506 IPC and having been acquitted, cannot be subjected to another trial for the same charges on the same facts -- Any such process would be in blatant disregard of the settled principles which disapprove double jeopardy and are precisely contained in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India as also Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(Para 24.2.1)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 120-B, 376-D, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Gang rape – Regular bail -- Petitioner is approximately 18 years whereas the age of prosecutrix is 28 years, who is also the paternal aunt of the petitioner – Petitioner was arrested on 24.07.2021 and is in custody since then – Main witness has already been examined whereas nine other prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined -- Keeping in view the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and the petitioner is in custody since 24.07.2021, the petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 2-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 (2) (n) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- POCSO matter – Rape case -- Compromise quashing of FIR – Dispute amicably settled between the parties – In the event, the Court is satisfied that in order to secure the ends of justice, it should interfere under its inherent powers, it ought to do so -- Respondent no.2/ girl already attained the age of majority, has solemnized marriage with the petitioner and the couple is stated to be residing happily with each other and a male child has also been born from the wedlock -- Possibility of conviction also become remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case will cause injustice not only to the petitioner but also to respondent No.2, who is now legally wedded wife of the petitioner -- FIR quashed.

(Para 5-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 365, 452, 366, 506 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 3(i), 101(3)(a) -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Acquittal of juvenile in rape case – Criminal writ petition against -- Place of occurrence i.e. the shop of the accused is situated in a public place, however, as per the deposition of the victim she was forcibly taken from her home to the shop by forcibly making her to sit on the motorcycle of the accused is also improbable as there was strong possibility of the family members coming to know of the same -- Besides this, the ocular version is not even medically corroborated beyond reasonable doubt -- Once the accused is acquitted there lies double the presumption of innocence in his favour -- Interference can be in a situation when there are perversities in the findings arrived at by the Trial Court -- If there are two views possible then the one favouring the accused should be adopted -- Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case and evidence adduced on record on the anvil of the law settled, Court finds no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Juvenile Justice Board in acquitting the accused -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 6-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 446A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 34, 120-B, 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 – Absence from trial – Non-bailable warrants – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner had been regularly appearing before the trial Court and it was only on one occasion he absented and even his bail bonds have not been cancelled or forfeited to the State -- Keeping in view that there is only a single date default, petitioner is directed to put in appearance before the trial Court within ten days from today and on his doing so he shall be released on bail on old bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(Para 2-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(n), 450, 452, 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 439 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Complicity of the petitioner in the offence would remain subject matter of debate before the Trial Court and the petitioner, who is in custody for the last more than 10 months would be entitled to be released on bail as 14 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined -- Without delving into the merits or demerits, petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 3-8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Inherent power u/s 482 of Cr.P.C – Scope of – Power is not to be invoked as a matter of routine but to prevent the abuse of process of Court and to secure ends of justice -- This section gives the power to High Court to entertain applications which are not contemplated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the event, it is felt that the ends of justice will require that the Court can invoke the extraordinary powers which are to be exercised with restraint and not lightly -- In the event, the Court is satisfied that in order to secure the ends of justice, it should interfere under its inherent powers, it ought to do so.

(Para 7)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Rape case – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Respondent no.2/girl has already attained the age of majority, has solemnized marriage with the petitioner and the couple is stated to be residing happily with each other -- In such circumstances, the possibility of conviction also become remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case will cause injustice not only to the petitioner but also to respondent No.2/girl, who is now legally wedded wife of the petitioner -- As such, it is a fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code, so as to secure the ends of justice -- Continuation of the prosecution would result in sheer abuse of process of law -- FIR qua the petitioner quashed.

(Para 8-12)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(2)n -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO matter – Rape case-- Regular bail – Petitioner is behind bars since 16.01.2020 -- Alleged occurrence took place in July, 2019 whereas, the present FIR has been lodged on 16.01.2020 -- Though the victim has supported the case of the prosecution, however, out of total 18 prosecution witnesses, 11 witnesses including all the material witnesses already stand examined -- Thus, the chances of tampering with the prosecution witnesses by the petitioner definitely does not survive any more -- Petitioner has no criminal antecedents -- Trial will take sufficient long time -- Veracity of the allegations would be assessed after conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of the evidence -- Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A, 304-B -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32(1) – Acquittal u/s 304-B IPC – Conviction u/s 498-A IPC -- Dying declaration – Reliance upon – Test for admissibility is not that the evidence to be admitted should directly relate to a charge pertaining to the death of the individual, or that the charge relating to death could not be proved -- Rather, the test appears to be that the cause of death must come into question in that case, regardless of the nature of the proceeding, and that the purpose for which such evidence is being sought to be admitted should be a part of the ‘circumstances of the transaction’ relating to the death -- In some circumstances, the evidence of a deceased wife with respect to cruelty could be admissible in a trial for a charge u/s 498A of the IPC u/s 32(1) of the Evidence Act -- However, certain necessary pre-conditions that must be met before the evidence is admitted -- The first condition is that her cause of death must come into question in the matter, however the charge relating to death is proved or not is immaterial with respect to admissibility -- The second condition is that the prosecution will have to show that the evidence that is sought to be admitted with respect to Section 498A of the IPC must also relate to the circumstances of the transaction of the death -- How far back the evidence can be, and how connected the evidence is to the cause of death of the deceased would necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

(Para 11, 17-22)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 136, 137 -- Mental cruelty -- Deceased’s wife was being harassed is clear from the evidence of PW-3 (mother of the deceased) -- She had specifically stated in her chief-examination that within few days of their marriage, the appellant brought the deceased back to her parental home with the threat that if extra dowry was not given, he would leave her and marry another “beautiful” girl -- As a result of such harassment, the deceased allegedly attempted suicide for the first time by consuming poison -- While she was being treated in the hospital, a settlement was reached between the parties, to which appellant was also a part, wherein it was agreed that no further demands for dowry would be made -- Further, it was stated by PW-3 in her chief-examination that even after the settlement, the appellant had continued to illtreat the deceased -- Deceased, due to the ill-treatment faced by her had ultimately committed suicide by hanging herself with a saree -- Conviction of the appellant u/s 498A of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, upheld.

(Para 25, 26)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 136, 137 -- Interested witness – Evidence by mother of the deceased – Value of -- It is a settled principle of law that the evidence tendered by the related or interested witness cannot be discarded on that ground alone -- However, as a rule of prudence, the Court may scrutinize the evidence of such related or interested witness more carefully.

(Para 26)

A. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 2(f), 12, 29 -- Domestic violence case – Alternative remedy – Inherent powers of High Court -- High Court would have the jurisdiction to entertain a petition u/s 482 of the Code and the statutory remedy of appeal under the DV Act would not be an embargo in exercise of such power.

(Para 6-7)

B. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 2(f), 12 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Domestic relationship -- Domestic violence case against in-laws – Maintainability of – Quashing under inherent power of High Court --  Allegations leveled may attract the offences under the IPC, but in order to invoke the jurisdiction under the DV Act, it is necessary that the parties should be in a “domestic relationship” as defined under Section 2 (f) of the DV Act -- Tone and toner of the complaint shows that the primary allegation by the respondent is against her husband -- Occasional visit by the petitioners to the matrimonial house of the respondent would not bring it within the four corners of the definition of domestic relationship or shared household -- Petitioners, both of whom are more than 75 years of age, do not have any domestic relationship nor have they lived together in a share household with the respondent and the institution of the complaint against them under the provisions of the DV Act is an abuse of the process of law and the same deserves to be set aside -- Accordingly, the petition allowed -- Complaint u/s 12 of the DV Act as well as all proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 9-11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(1) -- Cancellation of bail -- Supreme Court would be loath to interfere with an order passed by the Court below granting bail but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to scrutiny and interference by the Appellate Court -- Some of the circumstances where bail granted to the accused under Section 439 (1) of the Cr.P.C. can be cancelled are enumerated below: -

a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other criminal activity;

b) If he interferes with the course of investigation;

c) If he attempts to tamper with the evidence;

d) If he attempts to influence/threaten the witnesses;

e) If he evades or attempts to evade court proceedings;

f) If he indulges in activities which would hamper smooth investigation;

g) If he is likely to flee from the country;

h) If he attempts to make himself scarce by going underground and/or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency;

i) If he attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety.

j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of bail which are considered unconducive to a fair trial.

Aforesaid list is only illustrative in nature and not exhaustive.

(Para 24)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(1) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(n), 506 -- Rape case -- Cancellation of bail -- High Court granted bail on sole ground of delay on the part of the appellant/complainant in lodging the FIR -- Criminal antecedents of the respondent No.2 were brought to the notice of the High Court by the appellant/complainant and State has also confirmed that he is involved in at least four criminal cases – After bail, photographs appearing in the social media with his snapshots prominently displayed on posters/ hoarding in the forefront with the faces of some influential persons of the society in the backdrop, welcoming him with captions like “Bhaiyaa is back”, “Back to Bhaiyaa”, and “Welcome to Role Janeman” -- Brazen conduct of the respondent No.2 has evoked a bona fide fear in the mind of the appellant/complainant that she would not get a free and fair trial and that there is a likelihood of his influencing the material witnesses -- Representation by appellant’ father to the Superintendent of Police expressing the very same apprehension – Held, respondent No. 2 does not deserve the concession of bail -- Impugned order quashed -- Respondent No. 2 directed to surrender.

(Para 26-31)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 354-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Sexual harassment case -- Quashing of FIR – Compromise between parties -- FIR is an outcome of a petty dispute, which has been settled -- Perusal of the allegations levelled in the FIR shows that the ingredients of Section 354-A, IPC are not fulfilled -- As the parties have decided to bury the hatchet, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility and the same deserve to be set aside – Petition allowed.

(Para 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376(2)(N), 506, 328, 34 (Sections 313, 406, 366 were added later on and Section 34 was deleted) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Rape case -- Second regular bail application – Investigation Officer deposition took place – Prima facie, appears to be a consensual relationship, prosecutrix was a 30 years old woman -- Contention that there has been no material change in circumstances, after the withdrawal of the previous petition is bereft of any merit, as the Investigating Officer has since been examined -- Material witness/ prosecutrix also stands examined – 09 prosecution witnesses examined out of the 16 prosecution witnesses cited, there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in near future -- Court, therefore, deemed it fit to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner during the trial, as he has been in custody since 14th January, 2021.

(Para 8, 9)

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

(Para 6-9)

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

(Para 8-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Dowry death case -- Summoning of cousin sister-in-law as additional accused – Challenge to -- Complaint shows that the petitioner alongwith other co-accused had been harassing and pressurizing the deceased for bringing more dowry -- Deceased was being forced to bring Rs.2.00 lacs from her parents for sending D S abroad -- Investigating Agency despite having recorded the statements of some of the independent witnesses regarding the accusation of harassment of the deceased at the hands of petitioner, which is apparent from the perusal of the zimni has chosen to ignore the statements and for reasons best known to it and has given a clean chit to the petitioner -- As to whether the petitioner is a close relative of the deceased or a distant one and as to whether she is staying in same house or in another locality of the same village, are all matters to be tested by the Trial Court during the course of the trial – No illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Trial Court -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 12, 13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Matrimonial dispute – Non-recovery of dowry articles -- Anticipatory bail – Petitioner joined investigation on interim bail -- Recovery of disputed dowry articles would not come in the way of confirmation of interim bail -- If at some stage the parties agree to reconcile their differences then the fact that they had spent some time in custody would be a circumstance which may come in the way of amicably settling the matter – Interim bail granted to petitioner made absolute -- Rajesh Sharma’s case (2018) 10 SCC 472 and Anil Rajput’s case 2010(6) RCR (Criminal) 1126 relied.

(Para 1,2,6,7)

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

(Para 3-5)

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

(Para 1, 5, 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 18 – POCSO matter – Regular bail -- Allegation that petitioner has tried to do bad act with victim by forcibly kissing her and with intention to commit rape, he has broken the string of her Salwar – Prosecutrix is stated to be 17 years and 02 months of age -- Prosecutrix when was taken to hospital, she made a statement that she does not want to be medico-legally examined as no rape was committed with her -- Without commenting upon the merits of the case, considering the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody for the last about 01 year and 11 months; he is not involved in any other case and also considering the fact that statement of the prosecutrix already stands recorded, the petition allowed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1-12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 498-A – Dowry case – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner has joined the investigation, however, the gold articles are yet to be recovered -- It is apparent that there are allegations and counter-allegations which is totally a subject matter of the investigation -- Interim bail made absolute.

(Para 6-8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439(2) -- Cancellation of bail -- Once bail has been granted, the Courts should act with great circumspection in cancelling it unless, of course, some material is brought to the notice of the Court that the accused has breached the conditions of bail imposed upon them or a perverse order has been passed while granting the concession of bail.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439(2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A, 406 -- Anticipatory bail – Cancellation of bail – Non-recovery of dowry articles – Effect of -- Pursuant to the interim order, both accused had joined investigation -- Though, it was submitted by the Public Prosecutor that recovery of all dowry articles had not been effected from the respondents, however, it would not be out of place to observe that an FIR registered under Section 498-A, 406 of IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising out of them, cannot be converted solely into recovery proceedings -- Allegations of entrustment and misappropriation of dowry articles of the petitioner being disputed questions of fact, cannot be looked into by the Court while deciding a petition u/s 438 Cr.P.C.

(Para 6)