Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 354-A, 34 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 8 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 09.08.2019 -- Prosecutrix has denied the fact that the petitioner established physical relations with her -- Prosecutrix was got declared hostile by the prosecution – It would not be appropriate to further continue to incarcerate the petitioner – Conclusion of the trial is likely to take time, hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 7,8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6, 12 – Kidnapping – Allegation of aggravated penetrative sexual assault – Regular bail -- Bollywood movie “Bobby” like run away couple cases seem to be rampantly happening in the society -- Boy aged 19/20 years and girl aged 17 years – Girl refused for medico-legal examination in statement u/s 164 Cr.P.c. and stated that she willingly married to petitioner -- Prima facie, it is a case of consensual love -- Petitioner is in custody since 16.02.2020 -- Investigation is over and challan has been filed and trial is not likely to start or conclude anytime soon in view of current pandemic scenario – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Par 1-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3, 4 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 377, 506 – Unnatural offence – Penetrative sexual assault – Regular bail -- Two prosecution witnesses including the complainant have been examined but 09 PWs are yet to be examined – When, the petitioner is in custody for almost 07 months; he is not involved in any other case; the COVID-19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time – Petitioner is granted concession of regular bail.

(Para 1, 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354, 354-A, 451, 506 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8 – Sexual assault to child – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 07.12.2019 -- Investigation is over and commencement of trial is still awaited -- In the current pandemic scenario, the trial of the case is not likely either to start or get over soon -- Petitioner is admitted to bail.

(Para 1, 4,5)

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

(Para 1, 14, 15)

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

(Para 1,18,19)

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

(Para 2, 17-19)

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

(Para 1, 7-9)

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

(Para 8, 9)

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

(Para 10,11)

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

(Para 10,11)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 2(s) – Constitution of India, Article 141 -- Shared household -- Self-acquired property of parents-in-law – Right of -- Issue is not res integra and stands answered in S.R. Batra and Another’s case, 2007 (3) SCC 169 by the Supreme Court, and held that the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, which would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member – Judgement passed by the Supreme Court directly on the issue is binding on the Courts under Article 141 of the Constitution of India -- Appeal filed by daughter-in-law dismissed.

(Para 1-10)

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)

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)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366 -- Kidnapping – Run-away couple – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Offence of kidnapping is serious and non-compoundable and the Courts should not in the ordinary circumstances interfere and quash the FIR registered -- However, 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 kidnapping, cases where the accused and the victim are well known to each other, and allegation of kidnapping is levelled only because the marriage was performed against the wishes of the parents -- FIR registered u/s 363, 366 and 120-B IPC and all subsequent proceedings are quashed.

(Para 5-10)

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 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)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 18, 19, 24 -- Domestic violence before coming into force of DV Act -- Divorce between parties – Maintainability of petition under DV Act -- Protection order as per section 18 of the Act, maintenance and compensation order, accommodation/Residence order u/s 19 of the Act passed alternatively monthly rental charges allowed by Ld. JMIC affirmed by Appellate Court – Held, even if petitioner has taken divorce from the respondent-wife, still the petitioner is amenable to the jurisdiction of DV Act -- Even if the domestic violence met by the complainant before coming into force the DV Act, still she can maintain the petition under the DV Act -- Impugned judgments passed by ld. JMIC as well as Additional Sessions Judge, affirmed.

(Para 1,8-11)

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)

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)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 227 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 304-B – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Dowry death case -- Acquittal of co-accused/wife in separate trial -- Discharge application by appellant/husband – Consideration of -- In acquittal judgment of wife, categorical findings have been recorded that she along with her husband/appellant were present in particular State on the date of the occurrence, which attained finality – No reason, why the High Court has taken the view that accused appellant was in that State on the date of occurrence needed to be proved in the course of the trial – High Court, ought to have discharged the accused/appellant – Appeal allowed, order of the High Court set aside -- Appellant ordered to be discharged.

(Para 3-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375 (Fifthly), 376 – Rape case – Conviction u/s 376 of IPC – Quantum of sentence -- Prior to the Amendment 13 of 2013, the conviction u/s 376(1), the punishment shall not be less than seven years – Accused was aged about 23 years at the time of occurrence in 2009 and victim was aged about 14 years and 5 months -- Consent of victim is of no consequence to reduce the sentence less than minimum sentence of seven years – Considering the period of sentence already undergone and also the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant is reduced from 10 years to the statutory minimum period of seven years.

(Para 1,4,5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Rape case -- Quashing of FIR and charge -- Prosecutrix already married -- Physical relation with false assurance of marriage – Held without getting divorce, she could not have married to the petitioner – It is quite clear and evident that the complainant had developed a relationship during the subsistence of her marriage and the relationship was consensual in nature -- Being a major and a person who was competently running a beauty parlour shop, it could not be said that she would be unaware of the consequences of the relationship she was entering into and that no marriage could be solemnized without obtaining the divorce from the first one – FIR and all proceedings arising out of the same are quashed. Prashant Bharti’s case, 2013 AIR(SC)(Crl.)1778 relied.

(Para 6-11)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375, Exception 2 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 5, 6 -- Constitution of India, Article 15(3) -- Marital rape with girl child -- Whether sexual intercourse between a man and his wife being a girl between 15 and 18 years of age is rape? – Held, Sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 years of age is rape regardless of whether she is married or not -- Exception carved out in the IPC creates an unnecessary and artificial distinction between a married girl child and an unmarried girl child and has no rational nexus with any unclear objective sought to be achieved -- Artificial distinction is arbitrary and discriminatory and is definitely not in the best interest of the girl child -- Artificial distinction is contrary to the philosophy and ethos of Article 15(3) of the Constitution as well as contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution and our commitments in international conventions -- Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC to now be meaningfully read as: “Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under eighteen years of age, is not rape.”

 (Para 1, 105)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375, Exception 2 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 5, 6 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 2(12, 2(14) -- Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (6 of 2007), Section 3 -- Marital rape/ Sexual inter-course with wife aged 15 to 18 years – Harmonious and purposive interpretation -- Entire issue of the interpretation of the JJ Act, the POCSO Act, the PCMA and Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC can be looked at from the perspective of purposive and harmonious construction of statutes relating to the same subject matter – There seems to be no reason to arbitrarily discriminate against a girl child who is married between 15 and 18 years of age -- Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC is to be read in a purposive manner to make it in consonance with the POCSO Act, the spirit of other pro-child legislations and the human rights of a married girl child -- To harmonize the system of laws relating to children and require Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC to now be meaningfully read as: “Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under eighteen years of age, is not rape.”

(Para 99, 103, 105,108)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375, Exception 2 –Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 5, 6 -- Constitution of India, Article 14, 15, 21 -- Sexual inter-course with wife aged 15 to 18 years – Marital rape with girl child below 18 years -- Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC in so far as it relates to a girl child below 18 years is liable to be struck down on the following grounds:–

(i)      it is arbitrary, capricious, whimsical and violative of the rights of the girl child and not fair, just and reasonable and, therefore, violative of Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

(ii)     it is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and;

(iii)    it is inconsistent with the provisions of POCSO, which must prevail.

Therefore, Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC is read down as follows:

“Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being 18 years, is not rape”.

This judgment will have prospective effect.

(Para 195)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375, Exception 2 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 198(6) -- Sexual inter-course with wife aged 15 to 18 years – Martial rape with wives below 18 years – Cognizance of -- Section 198(6) of the Code will apply to cases of rape of “wives” below 18 years, and cognizance can be taken only in accordance with the provisions of Section 198(6) of the Code.

(Para 196)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A, 304-B -- Dowry death – Acquittal of accused -- Rs.20,000/- for the purchase of agricultural land was demanded by father-in-law when husband was in Dubai – Husband is stated to have returned to India from Dubai eight to ten months, after the above demand -- A female child was born about a year after the return of husband to India -- After the birth of the female child, deceased-wife had remained in her maternal house, for about four to five months -- Even if the above oral allegation is accepted as correct, it was a demand made about two years before the occurrence -- Same was too remote to the occurrence, and therefore, would not satisfy the requirement of “soon before her death” contemplated under Section 304B(1) of the Indian Penal Code -- Demand of sewing-machine was clarified by mother of girl during her cross-examination that her daughter knew tailoring and the sewing-machine was given to her for tailoring clothes -- This was really a gift and therefore, cannot be considered as a part of the demand made by inlaws husband for himself or for his family members -- This allegation is inconsequential -- High Court was, therefore, fully justified in acquitting the accused.

(Para 16-21)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41 – Arrest of accused – Procedure of -- All cases where the arrest of a person is not required u/s 41(1), the police officer is required to issue notice directing the accused to appear before him at a specified place and time -- Law obliges such an accused to appear before the police officer and it further mandates that if such an accused complies with the terms of notice he shall not be arrested, unless for reasons to be recorded, the police office is of the opinion that the arrest is necessary -- At this stage also, the condition precedent for arrest as envisaged u/s 41 Cr.PC has to be complied and shall be subject to the same scrutiny by the Magistrate.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A etc. -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 4 – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 12 – Dowry case – Offence punishable upto seven years -- Arrest of accused – Procedure of -- Practice of mechanically reproducing in the case diary all or most of the reasons contained in Section 41 Cr.PC for effecting arrest be discouraged and discontinued -- Police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically – Following direction given:

-- (1) All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;

-- (2) All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

-- (3) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

-- (4) The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;

-- (5) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

-- (6) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

-- (7) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

-- (8) Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

Directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

(Para 11-13)

A. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12 -- Domestic violence case -- Limitation -- In case of decree of divorce, the limitation to file proceedings is only one year -- In case of subsisting relationship of husband and wife, there is no limitation -- Complaint under the D.V. Act can be filed at any time as the physical and mental harassment within the family is a continuing offence.

(Para 6)

B. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A -- FIR u/s 498A IPC – Maintainability of complaint under DV act -- Whether complaint under D.V. Act, is maintainable where a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is already pending? -- Both the cases are of different nature and have no bearing upon each other -- However, a Magistrate in proceedings under the D.V. Act, can also add Section 498-A IPC in order to inflict punishment upon the offender -- Held, both proceedings are of different nature and can be filed separately -- Proceedings under the D.V Act can continue on the same set of facts of a case under Section 406, 498-A IPC.

(Para 8, 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 354, 376 -- Rape – Quashing of FIR/Charge -- Complainant/ prosecutrix was married -- Allegation that consent was based on a false assurance of marriage -- Allegations made of by the complainant positively during the subsistence of her marriage -- Held, it is apparent that the complainant could not have been induced into a physical relationship, based on an assurance of marriage – Since the aspect of assurance stands falsified, the acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC -- Even in the charge sheet, the investigating officer has acknowledged, that he could not find any proof to substantiate the charges -- Charge-sheet had been filed only on the basis of the statement of the complainant/prosecutrix u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. -- FIR u/s 328, 354 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequential chargesheet as also the framing of charges deserves to be quashed -- Same are accordingly quashed.

(Para 20-22)