A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 162 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106, 145 -- Contradiction in statement – Circumstantial evidence – Acquittal -- Significant improvements and omissions in the evidence of PW-3 -- Omissions are so relevant that they become contradictions in view of the Explanation to Section 162 of the CR.P.C. -- Thus, it is very difficult to accept the testimony of PW-3 as reliable -- PW-1 is not a witness to the theory of last seen together -- Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the theory of last seen together was proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt -- When the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established -- There must be a chain of circumstances so complete as not to leave any ground for any conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused -- Two significant circumstances forming the chain have not been established -- Conviction and sentence set aside

(Para 10-12)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 162 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 145 -- Contradiction in statement – Proof of -- Portion of the prior statement shown to the witness for contradicting the witness must be proved through the investigating officer -- Unless the said portion of the prior statement used for contradiction is duly proved, it cannot be reproduced in the deposition of the witnesses -- The correct procedure is that the Trial Judge should mark the portions of the prior statements used for contradicting the witness -- The said portions can be put in bracket and marked as AA, BB, etc. -- The marked portions cannot form a part of the deposition unless the same are proved.

(Para 11)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 506 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Domestic violence -- There may be situations where some of the family members or relatives may turn a blind eye to the violence or harassment perpetrated to the victim, and may not extend any helping hand to the victim, which does not necessarily mean that they are also perpetrators of domestic violence, unless the circumstances clearly indicate their involvement and instigation -- Hence, implicating all such relatives without making specific allegations and attributing offending acts to them and proceeding against them without prima facie evidence that they were complicit and had actively collaborated with the perpetrators of domestic violence, would amount to abuse of the process of law.

(Para 35)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 506 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Domestic violence – Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Nothing on record to show that the parents witnessed any of the incidents of physical harassment of the complainant at the instance of the appellants -- Complainant in her complaints did not assign any specific role to the appellants concerning the demands of dowry and physical and mental harassment of the complainant, except for making a sweeping allegation without specific details -- Appellants do not live with the principal accused -- While the marriage took place in Pondicherry and the complainant lived with her husband and mother-in-law in Chennai, the appellants are residents of Hyderabad -- Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 37-41)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148(1) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Expedite decision on appeal – Suspension of sentence -- On joint request of the parties, petitioners exempted from depositing an amount of Rs.43,65,125/- i.e. 20% of the amount of compensation during the pendency of the appeal, before the Appellate Court -- Since the complaint was initially filed on 11.01.2018 and a period of 7 years has lapsed, after the institution of the complaint, the Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal within a period of 04 months.

(Para 6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 – Section 24 -- Duty of Public Prosecutor -- A Public Prosecutor is not expected to show a thirst to reach the case in the conviction of the accused somehow or the other irrespective of the true facts of the case -- The expected attitude of the Public Prosecutor while conducting prosecution must be couched in fairness not only to the Court to the investigation agencies but to the accused as well -- If an accused is entitled to any legitimate benefit during trial, the Public Prosecutor should not scuttle/conceal it -- On the contrary, it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to winch it to the fore and make it available to the accused -- Even if the court or defence counsel overlooked it, the Public Prosecutor has the added responsibility to bring it to the notice of the Court, if it comes to his knowledge.

(Para 96)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 – Murder – Acquittal by trial court -- Conviction in revision – Power of -- Sub-section (3) of Section 401 CrPC prohibits/ bars the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction -- Defence counsel as well as the Public Prosecutor owes a duty to correct the Court if the Court is falling in some error and for all this, the State Government responsible -- It is the State Government who appointed the concerned Public Prosecutor -- High Court committed an egregious error in reversing the acquittal and passing an order of conviction in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellants -- Appeals allowed -- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court set aside -- State Government directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- each to the three appellants towards compensation within a period of four weeks.

(Para 1-3, 40-46, 97-99)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 225 – Cheque bounce complaint – Enquiry u/s 225 BNSS – Requirement of -- Drill of Section 225 BNSS (erstwhile Section 202 Cr.P.C.) was not followed before issuance of process -- Intention is to ensure that sufficient grounds exist in order to proceed against an accused in a private complaint -- It is pertinent that the concerned Court passes an order indicating substantial compliance of the aforementioned provision, in view of the directions issued in In re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 NI Act 1881 2021(2) L.A.R. 366 = (2021) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16184 -- Matter remanded back to concerned Court to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law, by taking recourse to Section 225 BNSS.

(Para 4-10)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 90, 376 -- Rape – Promise to marry – Only because physical relations were established based on a promise to marry, it will not amount to rape -- For the offence of rape to be attracted, the following conditions need to be satisfied: first, the accused promised to marry the prosecutrix solely to secure consent for sexual relations without having any intention of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning; second, that the prosecutrix gave her consent for sexual relations by being directly influenced by such false promise of marriage.

(Para 6)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 417, 376 & 506 Part I -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape – Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Promise to marry – Consensual relationship between the appellant and prosecutrix – It does not appear from the record that the initial promise to marry allegedly made by the appellant was false to begin with -- Perusal of FIR itself suggests that the alleged promise to marry could not be fulfilled by the appellant due to intervening circumstances -- Consequently, the relationship ended because of which the present FIR came to be registered -- Under these circumstances, letting the appellant face trial would be nothing short of an abuse of the process of the Court -- This cannot be permitted -- Criminal proceedings arising out of FIR quashed.

(Para 7-9)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 173, 175(3) – Registration of FIR -- Investigation by Police – Power of Judicial Magistrate – Hearing to Police officer – Mandate of -- By requiring the Magistrate to consider the submissions made by the concerned police officer before proceeding to issue directions u/s 175(3), BNSS has affixed greater accountability on the police officer responsible for registering FIRs u/s 173 -- Mandating the Magistrate to consider the submissions of the concerned police officer also ensures that the Magistrate applies his mind judicially while considering both the complaint and the submissions of the police officer thereby ensuring that the requirement of passing reasoned orders is complied with in a more effective and comprehensive manner.

(Para 34, 35)

A. Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), Section 143 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Criminal proceedings against unauthorised agent – Quashing of -- Respondent/ accused alleged, had created hundreds of fake user IDs to sell tickets without any authorisation from the railways -- Although the internet and e-tickets were unknown in India when the Act was brought into force, this conduct of accused (who is neither a railway servant nor an authorised agent) nevertheless attracts criminality under Section 143(1)(a) of the Railways Act -- Mere fact of the system of e-reservation and e-tickets being introduced after the enactment of the Act does not render the provision in Section 143 toothless to combat the illegal sale of e-tickets – Criminal proceedings restored.

(Para 15, 19, 28)

B. Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), Section 143 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Criminal proceedings against authorised agent – Quashing of -- Fraudulent activities such as supply of Tatkal e-tickets by creating multiple personal-user IDs and issuing unauthorised e-tickets procured through IRCTC website, contrary to IRCTC Rules -- Section 143 only deals with the actions of unauthorised persons and does not mandate a procedure to be followed by the authorised agents for procuring or supplying tickets to its customers – Section 143 would not be attracted insofar as he is concerned – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 35, 39)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 51 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451, 457 – Return of seized vehicle – Superdari – There is no specific bar/ restriction under the provisions of the NDPS Act for return of any seized vehicle in the interim pending disposal of the criminal case -- In view of Section 51 of NDPS Act, the Court can invoke the general power under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C. for return of the seized vehicle pending final decision of the criminal case -- Trial Court has the discretion to release the vehicle in the interim.

(Para 22, 23)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 51, 60 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451, 457 – Return of seized vehicle – Superdari – Vehicles in police custody are stored in the open -- If the Vehicle is not released during the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce -- On the contrary, if the Vehicle in question is released, it would be beneficial to the owner (who would be able to earn his livelihood), to the bank/financier (who would be repaid the loan disbursed by it) and to the society at large (as an additional vehicle would be available for transportation of goods) – Appeal allowed, trial Court directed to release the Vehicle in the interim on superdari after preparing a video and still photographs of the vehicle and after obtaining all information/documents necessary for identification of the vehicle, which shall be authenticated by the Investigating Officer, owner of the Vehicle and accused by signing the same – Conditions imposed.

(Para 34-36)

Criminal jurisprudence – Contradiction in statement/ prosecution story -- ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ -- Principle of ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ does not apply to the Indian criminal jurisprudence and only because there are some contradictions which in the opinion of this Court are not even that material, the entire story of the prosecution cannot be discarded as false -- It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff -- In a given case, it is also open to the Court to differentiate the accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted where there are a number of accused persons.

(Para 25)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005) – Bailable warrants in DV Act matter – Permissibility of -- Proceedings under the D.V. Act are quasi criminal proceedings which do not have any penal consequence except where there is a violation or breach of a protection order -- Learned Magistrate was absolutely unjustified in directing issuance of bailable warrants against the petitioner.

(Para 5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 –Additional accused – Who can be summoned -- Trial Court has jurisdiction at any stage of the proceedings on the evidence adduced that the persons who have not been arrayed as accused should face the trial -- Initially named in the F.I.R. as an accused, but not charge sheeted, can also be added to face the trial.

(Para 21(a))

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused – Evidence – Charge-sheet/ Case Diary -- Consideration of -- Trial court can take such a step to add such persons as accused only on the basis of evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of materials available in the charge-sheet or the case diary, because such materials contained in the charge sheet or the case diary do not constitute evidence.

(Para 21(b))

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused – 'any person not being the accused’ – Meaning of -- Phrase 'any person not being the accused' occurred in Section 319 covers any person who is not being tried already by the Court -- Persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before the Criminal Court are included in the said expression.

(Para 21(c))

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused – Satisfaction of Investigation Officer – Requirements of -- It would not be proper for the trial court to reject the application for addition of new accused by considering records of the Investigating Officer -- When the evidence of complainant is found to be worthy of acceptance then the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer hardly matters -- If satisfaction of Investigating Officer is to be treated as determinative then the purpose of Section 319 would be frustrated.

(Para 21(c))

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 366, 376 (2)(n) – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Rape -- Appeal against conviction – Delay of 1637 days -- Condonation of delay – High Court dismissed the appeal on delay – Held, right to appeal, particularly when it concerns the liberty of an individual, is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution -- High Court's order dismissing the appeal solely due to delay, without properly examining the reasons for the delay warrants reconsideration – Dismissal of the appeal was erroneous -- Delay of 1637 days condoned -- High Court requested to dispose of the Criminal Appeal on merits in accordance with law.

(Para 5-8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Inherent powers of High court – Change in law -- Second petition – Maintainability of -- Change of law can legitimately be regarded as a vital change in circumstance clothing the high court with the power, competence and jurisdiction to entertain the subsequent petition notwithstanding the fact that the earlier petition was withdrawn without obtaining any leave, subject to the satisfaction recorded by the high court that the order prayed for in the subsequent petition ought to be made, inter alia, either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

(Para 19)

B. May – Shall – Interpretation of -- Use of the verbs ‘may’ and ‘shall’ in a statute is not a sure index for determining whether such statute is mandatory or directory in character -- The legislative intent has to be gathered looking into other provisions of the enactment, which can throw light to guide one towards a proper determination -- While the general impression is that ‘may’ and ‘shall’ are intended to have their natural meaning, it is the duty of the court to gather the real intention of the legislature by carefully analysing the entire statute, the section and the phrase/expression under consideration.

(Para 24)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 148 – Appeal – Conviction in Cheque bounce complaint – Suspension of sentence Since the self-same section, read as a whole, reveals that ‘may’ has been used twice and ‘shall’ thrice, it must be presumed that the legislature was well and truly aware of the words used which form the skin of the language -- Reading and understanding the words used by the legislature in the literal sense does not also result in manifest absurdity and hence tinkering with the same ought to be avoided at all costs -- Therefore, read ‘may’ as ‘may’ and ‘shall’ as ‘shall’, wherever they are used in Section 148.

(Para 27)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195, 340 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 193, 199, 200 – False evidence before Tribunal – Private complaint – Maintainability of --- An offence u/s 193/199/200 of IPC can theoretically be committed inside as well as outside a court -- Proceedings which are taking before the Tribunal is not a Court, as defined under the law – It is not empowered to entertain such an application as prescribed under the law u/s 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. -- Only way such an application can be entertained and that too, for the precise offences of Sections 193, 199 and 200 is through a private complaint and only relating to the offences before the Tribunal -- Complaint shall be entertained by the concerned Tribunal and thereafter, the orders shall be passed.

(Para 10,11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 58 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256 -- NDPS case -- Punishment for vexatious entry, search, seizure or arrest – Jurisdiction of Special Judge -- Special Judge could not have conducted the proceedings against the appellant/ Superintendent of Police  for the offence punishable u/s 58 of the NDPS Act inasmuch as such proceedings could have been conducted only by a Magistrate -- Procedure as required under Chapter XX i.e. Sections 251 to 256 of the Cr.P.C. has also not been followed -- Notice issued by the learned Special Judge to the appellant u/s 58 of the NDPS Act and all subsequent proceedings quashed and set aside.

(Para 2, 26)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged In Black-Marketing Of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (LV of 1981), Section 3(2) -- Detention order -- Pubic disorder -- Every breach of peace does not lead to public disorder -- When a person can be dealt with in exercise of powers to maintain the law and order, unless the acts of the proposed detainee are the ones which have the tendency of disturbing the public order a resort to preventive detention which is a harsh measure would not be permissible -- Six cases are registered for selling illicit liquor, the Excise Authority did not find it necessary to arrest the appellant even on a single occasion -- It would have been a different matter after releasing on bail, appellant continued with his activities -- Statements of witnesses do not show that the said witnesses were threatened by the appellant in the presence of the villagers which would create a perception in the mind of the villagers that the appellant herein is a threat to the public order -- Detention order set aside.

(Para 13-20)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(c), 2(d), 156 (1), 156(3), 200, 202 – Cognizable offence -- Non-registration of FIR -- Complaint to Magistrate – Procedure of -- When a complaint is presented before a Magistrate, he has the option either to order an investigation as provided u/s 156(1) of Code or to proceed u/s 200 of Code, examine the complainant and his witnesses and then proceed further under the provision of Section 202 of Code -- An order u/s 156(3) of Code which is the second option is in fact in the nature of reminder to the police to perform its duty and reinvestigate into the alleged cognizable offence u/s 156(1) of Code.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(c), 156(3) – Cognizable offence – Complaint u/s 156(3) of CR.P.C. -- Duty of Magistrate -- While disposing of a complaint moved u/s 156(3) of the Code, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind to the bare contents of the application regarding disclosure of cognizable offence, though he is not bound to proceed to decide whether or not there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further to satisfy himself regarding commission of cognizable offence.

(Para 5)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(d), 2(g), 156(1), 156(3) – Cognizable offence -- Complaint -- Complaint u/s 156(3) of CR.P.C. -- Duty of Magistrate -- The Magistrate may treat an application under Section 156(3) of the Code as a complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Code and is not bound to pass an order for registration of FIR -- He can also dismiss the complaint if no cognizable offence is made out and can also pass an order after going through the contents of the complaint and on analyzing the preliminary evidence appended with the complaint, by recording a finding that a prima facie cognizable offence appears to have been committed or not.

(Para 5)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(d), 2(g), 156(1), 156(3) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Cognizable offence -- Complaint u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. – Treated as private complaint – Quashing of -- Though in the complaint, a specific prayer made for sending the same u/s 156(3) of the Code for registration of FIR but after receipt of action taken report, instead of applying its mind on the question as to whether a case for sending the case for registration of FIR was made out or not or that it was a case, which was to be treated as a private complaint, the learned trial Court straightway proceeded to pass the order for recording preliminary evidence and adjourned the case for that purpose -- Impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as it has not been passed in consonance of the well-established principles of law -- Order set aside, matter remanded to the learned trial Court for hearing the arguments on the question as to whether the prayer made by him for sending the complaint to SHO concerned for registration of an FIR deserves to be allowed or not and to pass an order afresh by recording reasons thereof.

(Para 6, 7)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(x) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 294, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 239 -- Offence under SC/ST Act -- Public view – Backyard of private house -- Place of occurrence was at the backyard of the appellant’s house -- Backyard of a private house cannot be within the public view -- Persons who accompanied the second respondent/ complainant were also the employees or the labour force she had engaged for the purpose of carrying out repairs to her house which is adjacent to the appellant’s house -- They cannot also be termed as public in general – Appellant discharged from the offence.

(Para 13)

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (14 of 2013), Section 13, 26 – Copy of Inquiry report – Right of victim -- Report of the Inquiry Committee was not given to the petitioner, as she was not an accused and the Inquiry Report did not find anything material against the accused person – Held, Inquiry Report ought to have been given to the victim as it is required to be given u/s 13 (1) to all the “concerned parties” -- Petitioner is a concerned party.

(Para 8, 9)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 491, 528 -- Absence from trial – Forfeiture of bail bond -- Arrest warrant – Quashing of -- Objective of the coercive mechanism prescribed under the BNSS, 2023 is to ensure that the accused remains present before the Court to receive the orders and punishments as are passed qua the accused -- If the accused shows his sincere intention and desire to appear before the Court, then it would not be unjustified to protect him from being arrested – Petitioner was granted bail by the learned trial Court, however due to a misimpression regarding the date, he could not appear before the learned trial Court on two dates and on account of the same, warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner, he is ready to appear and face the trial -- Petition allowed, Trial Court directed to release the petitioner on same bail bonds/surety bonds.

(Para 5-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 197 – Sanction for prosecution -- Earlier sanction declined -- Subsequent sanction given based on the same material -- In the absence of any other contra material which weighed in the mind of the sanctioning authority, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

(Para 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 239, 482 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Quashing of FIR – Scope of -- Framing of charge -- Effect of -- High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous without considering the case on merits -- Appellants can apply for discharge, however, the scope of application for discharge is completely different from the scope of a petition for quashing the criminal proceedings -- While arguing a case for discharge, the appellants will not be in a position to rely upon any document which is not the part of charge sheet, ground of abuse of process of law will not be available -- However, in a petition for quashing either u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a wider challenge is available including a challenge on the ground of abuse of process of law -- Impugned order set aside, writ petition restored.

(Para 5-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304A, 287 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 359, 528 – Death by electrocution in Rolling Mill – Non-compoundable offence -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- When the deceased’s family absolves the accused of any negligence or rash act, it would be impossible for the prosecution to succeed during the trial -- Thus, quashing of cases u/s 304-A IPC, other than roadside accidents, can be quashed depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, the role assigned to the accused, mens rea, and the guilt of the such person -- After the death, the petitioners helped the complainant family financially and emotionally -- Accident occurred in broad daylight, and as an adult, the victim should have been more careful while performing his duties -- It is not a case where the acts of the Rolling mill or the Manager can be termed as rash or negligent -- Inherent jurisdiction u/s 528 BNSS, 2023 invoked, the FIR and all subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 7-18)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Fair trial -- Right of accused – Preservation of call details – Right to privacy of police officials -- Legislative intent behind enactment of Section 91 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that no cogent material or evidence involved in the issue remains undiscovered in unearthing the true facts during investigation, enquiry, trial or other proceedings -- While passing the appropriate direction for preserving and production of call details/ tower location details u/s 91 Cr.P.C. would violate the right to privacy of the police officials but the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in ensuring free and fair investigation/ trial would prevail over the right to privacy of the police officials.

(Para 7)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-A, 427, 279 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 65A, 65B -- Death by rash and negligent driving -- Fair trial – Right of accused -- Preservation of call details – Denial of an adequate opportunity to the accused by non-production of the electronic record, which is admissible u/s 65-A and 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act in criminal trial, would amount to miscarriage of justice -- Power u/s 91 Cr.P.C. must be exercised for production of such evidence, which would assist the Court in discovering the truth in the pursuit of justice -- Learned trial Court directed to pass necessary directions u/s 91 Cr.P.C. for preserving and production of the call details/ tower location details of the phone numbers mentioned in the application filed u/s 91 Cr.P.C

(Para 8-10)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 480(6), 483 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 406, 120B – Cheating – Non-conclusion of trial within 60 days -- Bail – Right of -- Charges framed on 31.05.2024, case is triable by the Magistrate -- First date for recording evidence was 14.06.2024 and 60 days completed on 13.08.2024 -- Accused-petitioner is in custody for more than two years -- Only one prosecution witness out of total 33 prosecution witnesses examined -- Accused cannot be continued in custody for an indefinite period and that too for no fault on his bail in conclusion of the trial as per the mandate of Section 480(6) of BNSS – Bail allowed.

(Para 9, 10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 256 – Cheque bounce complaint – Dismiss in default -- Complaint was filed on 18.12.2020 and thereafter, the appellant/ complainant was regularly appearing before the Trial Court, however, on 23.08.2024 the appellant could not appear as wrong date was noted by the counsel, complaint was ordered to be dismissed for non-prosecution -- Held, Magistrate has discretion to dismiss the complaint, however, if the Magistrate finds that there was some valid reason for non-appearance of the complainant or the presence of the complainant was not required during the Court proceeding, he can very well exercise his discretion to adjourn the complaint -- While exercising the jurisdiction u/s 256 Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration that the powers vested in it have to be exercised judiciously and in the interest of justice -- Impugned order set aside and the complaint is ordered to be restored to its original number.

(Para 11-14)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 31 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 – Proceedings under DV Act – Inherent Powers of High Court :

Questions referred to Larger Bench for adjudication:

(i) Once Section 28(1) prescribes that all proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can it be held that application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is ousted?

(ii) In case Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not applicable, can an aggrieved person invoke power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?

(iii) In case the aggrieved person is entitled to invoke power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, can it be said that the same is limited only qua the issue of jurisdiction as held by Madras High Court?

Questions referred by the Ld. Single Bech answered as under:

i) Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. is applicable qua proceedings arising out of complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 2005. The only exception is the cases where provisions of the Act of 2005 have been invoked in proceedings pending before Civil Court or Family Court.

ii) In view of answer to question No.(i), there is no need to answer question No.(ii).

iii) The power of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are subject to self-restraint. The same can neither be curtailed by statute nor by judicial order. In terms of dictum of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar's case (1997) 3 SCC 261 and Surya Dev Rai's case  (2003) 6 SCC 675, Article 227 is part of basic structure of the Constitution of India and is even beyond Constitutional amendment.

(Para 3, 32)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 446, 482 – Cheque bounce complaint – Absence of accused -- Forfeiture of bail bond – Presence of accused – Requirement of – Presence of an accused, where proceedings are semi-criminal/ civil in nature, should ordinarily not be insisted upon, if an application is moved for a particular hearing, unless the trial court needs to either examine the under-trial or his statement is to be otherwise recorded for proceeding further in the matter -- Impugned order directing the forfeiture of the bail-bonds of the petitioner accused and initiating proceedings against his surety u/s 446 Cr.P.C. set aside.

(Para 1, 7-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148A -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Appeal -- Suspension of sentence – Pre-deposit of 20% of compensation -- Looking at the financial condition of the petitioner, directing her to deposit 20% of the amount as per impugned order shall result in jeopardizing her appeal being dismissed on account of non-compliance of the condition of deposit -- Condition of pre-deposit of 20% of interim compensation set aside, Ld. Sessions Judge ordered to proceed with hearing of the appeal without insisting for pre-deposit and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 409 – Criminal breach of trust -- For bringing out the case under criminal breach of trust, it will have to be pointed out that a person, with whom entrustment of a property is made, has dishonestly misappropriated it, or converted it to his own use, or dishonestly used it, or disposed of that property.

(Para 23)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 201, 206, 217, 406, 409, 462, 34, 37, 120B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Criminal breach of trust by Bank – Quashing of FIR – No allegation of entrustment of the property which the appellant-bank has misappropriated or converted for its own use to the detriment of the respondent No.5, as such, the provisions of Section 406 and 409 IPC would  not be applicable -- Since there was no entrustment of any property, the ingredients of Section 462 IPC are also not applicable -- Offences u/s 206, 217 and 201 of the IPC requires mens rea, the ingredients of the said Sections also would not be available against the appellant-bank --  FIR/complaint also does not show that the appellant-bank and its officers acted with any common intention or intentionally cooperated in the commission of any alleged offences, as such, the provisions of section 34, 37 and 120B of the IPC would also not be applicable -- Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant-bank would cause undue hardship to the appellant-bank – FIR quashed.

(Para 23-31)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Power of -- Appellate court has the full power to review or re-appreciate or reconsider the evidence upon which the order/ judgment of acquittal has been based and there is no limitation, restriction in exercise of such power by the appellate court and the appellate court may reach at it is own conclusion on the same set of evidence, both on question of facts as well as on law.

(Para 14)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 50 – NDPS – Recovery of Charas from rucksack/ pitthu-bag -- Right to be searched before Magistrate or Gazetted officer -- It was a case of chance recovery and the contraband was recovered from the rucksack, which the accused was carrying with him on his right shoulder and not from his personal search -- Personal search of the accused was conducted after recovery of the contraband -- Section 50 of NDPS Act is not applicable.

(Para 20)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 35, 54 – NDPS – Recovery of 840 gram Charas from rucksack/ pitthu-bag – Presumption -- It is not the case of the accused that the said bag did not belong to him -- From the front pocket of the bag, his voter ID was recovered -- Once a physical possession of the contraband by the accused has been established, the onus is upon the accused to prove that it was not a conscious possession – Accused has only pleaded that a false case has been lodged against him -- Accused held guilty. Madan Lal’s case (2003) 7 SCC 465 relied.

(Para 28-30)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(2)(n) – Chatur Varshik Shradh of deceased father of convict – Interim bail -- Rape convict for 10 years -- Denial or curtailment or deprivation of interim release shall defeat the object and intent of reformation, which is the heart and core of criminal justice -- Interim bail granted commencing from 12th October 2024 till 20th October, 2024 with two police personnels.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 -- Abetment of suicide – Ingredients fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/ incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide.

(Para 21)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 -- Abetment of suicide – Quashing of FIR -- Extreme action of committing suicide on account of great disturbance to the psychological imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided into two broad categories. First, where the deceased is having sentimental ties or physical relations with the accused and the second category would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity.

-- In the case of former category sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange of words may result into immediate psychological imbalance, consequently creating a situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if the person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may give temptations to the person to commit suicide -- Relation of husband and wife, mother and son, brother and sister, sister and sister and other relations of such type, where sentimental tie is by blood or due to physical relations.

-- In the case of second category the tie is on account of official relations, where the expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in law.

Former category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category, by and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations -- It is for the police and the courts of law to look into the matter and see that the persons against whom allegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not put to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them.

(Para 10-22)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 -- Abetment of suicide – Deceased humiliated in the official meeting -- Quashing of FIR – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court – Appellant-Senior officers convened a meeting with the employees of the company -- Company wanted around fifty to sixty office employees to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) --  Alleged that in the course of the meeting the deceased was humiliated by the appellants & he felt very bad about it and he committed suicide – No case against the appellants made out – Appeal allowed, Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 4, 23-26)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Punjab Prevention of Human Smuggling Act, 2012 (2 of 2013), Section 13 – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Human Smuggling – Cheating – Compromise effected between the parties without any pressure or coercion and out of their free will -- FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed.

(Para 3, 5-7)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 389, 34 – Compromise quashing of FIR – Putting person in fear of accusation of offence, in order to commit extortion (Section 389 IPC) – Offence for which the accused have been charged are not of serious nature – Compromise will go a long way in ironing out the differences for betterment of future life of the parties – FIR alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Quashing of FIR/ Complaint – Duty of High Court -- Beyond holding that there are specific allegations, there is no other analysis by High Court -- Duty of the High Court, when its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution is invoked on the ground that the Complaint/ FIR is manifestly frivolous, vexatious or instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, to examine the allegations with care and caution.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 – Dowry case -- Quashing of FIR/ Charge-sheet – Husband not accused in criminal case -- While the husband institutes the civil suit, his wife has chosen to initiate criminal proceedings -- Interestingly, there is no reference of one proceeding in the other -- On 27.02.2013, the husband filed the Special Civil Suit against the three appellants, i.e. his father, stepmother and stepbrother seeking for a declaration that the property is ancestral in nature and that the father has no right to alienate or dispose of the property and also sought a declaration that he is entitled to use the trademark of the family business – Complainant/ wife filed the criminal complaint on 01.03.2013 alleging demand of dowry and threat by appellants that she and her husband will be denied a share in the property -- Provocation for the Complaint/ FIR is essentially the property dispute between father and son – FIR and Chargesheet quashed.

(Para 9, 18)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 – Dowry case -- Quashing of FIR/ Charge-sheet – Husband not accused in criminal case -- Allegations are vague, lacking in basic details -- The essence of the complaint is in the alleged threat to deprive the husband any share in the property with respect to which the husband has already filed the suit for declaration – In DV complaint identical allegations were examined in detail, subjected to strict scrutiny, and rejected as being false and untenable – The case is instance of abuse of criminal process and it would not be fair and just to subject the appellants to the entire criminal law process – FIR and charge-sheet quashed.

(Para 9-18)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Quashing of FIR – Charge-sheet filed -- There is no prohibition against quashing of the criminal proceedings even after the charge sheet has been filed.

(Para 16)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211 -- Attempt to murder – Simple injuries – Effect of -- Question of intention to kill or the knowledge of death in terms of Section 307, IPC is a question of fact and not one of law – Minor nature of injuries is not sufficient reason to not frame a charge u/s 307 IPC.

(Para 14-16)

A. Evidence law -- Injured eye-witnesses -- Sworn testimonies provided by injured witnesses generally carry significant evidentiary weight -- Such testimonies cannot be dismissed as unreliable unless there are pellucid and substantial discrepancies or contradictions that undermine their credibility -- If there is any exaggeration in the deposition that is immaterial to the case, such exaggeration should be disregarded; however, it does not warrant the rejection of the entire evidence.

(Para 12)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34 -- Common intention -- There cannot be a fixed timeframe for formation of common intention -- It is not essential for the perpetrators to have had prior meetings to conspire or make preparations for the crime -- Common intention to commit murder can arise even moments before the commission of the act -- Since common intention is a mental state of the perpetrators, it is inherently challenging to substantiate directly -- Instead, it can be inferred from the conduct of the perpetrators immediately before, during, and after the commission of the act.

(Para 19)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34, 302 – Murder -- Common intention -- Appellants are related by blood, arrived at the crime scene armed with a 12 bore double-barrel gun, dangs, and lathis within 15 minutes of the initial altercation, and subsequently attacked P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, and the victims -- During this attack, A-4, the father of A-1, raged by the incident of P.W.3 slapping his adult son A-1 and the pursuant altercation, fired with his gun at P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and the victims -- Thereafter, all the appellants fled together carrying their weapons -- It is evident that the appellants acted with a common intention to kill, seeking to avenge the slapping incident.

(Para 20)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34, 149 -- Common intention – Common object -- Determination of common intention or common object should primarily be within the domain of the trial courts, and at the most the high courts -- It should not be the role of Supreme Court to directly adjudicate issues of common intention and common object.

(Para 21)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 216, 464 – Non-framing of charge -- Failure of justice -- No finding, sentence or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in an appeal, confirmation or revision, a claim of "failure of justice" has been substantiated.

-- Law is well-settled that in order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned, it will be relevant to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself.

(Para 24, 25)

F. Evidence law – Independent witness -- It is settled law that examination of independent witness is not an indispensable requisite if the testimonies of other witnesses are deemed trustworthy and reliable --  Prosecution's case cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of the absence of independent witness.

(Para 29, 30)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 311 -- Additional evidence/ witness -- Summoning u/s 311 of Cr.P.C. – Object of – There may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side -- Determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case -- The section is a general section which applies to all proceedings, enquiries and trials under the Code and in this section, the significant expression that occurs is "at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code".

(Para 12)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 311 – Re-examination of evidence/ witness -- In the extract of Parivar Register, Ext. PW-10/B, the date of birth of the child victim “N” has been mentioned as 20.01.2006 and the date of birth of her eldest sister “R” has been mentioned as 10.12.1998 -- However, in Birth Certificate, Ext. PW-10/C, the name of child victim has wrongly been mentioned as “R”, who is the eldest sister of the child victim “N”, but her date of birth has been mentioned as 20.01.2006 -- Prima facie it appears that birth certificate, Ext. PW-10/C has been issued contrary to the record -- In order to clear the ambiguity and also to arrive at the just decision of the case, evidence of then Secretary, Gram Panchayat, is essential for just decision of the case and it cannot be said to amount to filling up of the lacuna or the abuse of process of law.

(Para 14)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 173, 311 -- Additional evidence – Examination of witness not cited in challan -- Although the name of the witness proposed to be examined, has not been cited by the prosecution in the chargesheet, however, in order to clear the ambiguity and that there may not be failure of justice on account of some mistake in bringing the valuable evidence on record and also to arrive at just decision of the case, his evidence is essential to ascertain the age of the child victim -- Hence, the application filed by the State/prosecution allowed.

(Para 16)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451, 482 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 20, 29, 60 -- NDPS Case – Superdari of vehicle -- Confiscation of vehicle – Ground of -- Release of vehicle cannot be denied to the applicant on the ground that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated; rather a duty has been cast upon the Court to immediately release the vehicle to the rightful owner until the question of confiscation of the vehicle is decided by the Competent Court -- Pendency of the confiscation proceedings has nothing to do with the release of the vehicle -- Subject to the furnishing of sapurdari bond in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, vehicle ordered to be released.

(Para 8-14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 319 – Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. on the same day of judgment for other accused – Quashing of -- Order of conviction for some accused and acquittal for other accused passed in the first half of the day -- In the second half, the Court first passed an order for sentencing of the persons who were convicted and only thereafter passed an order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for summoning the appellant – If a summoning order is passed, either after the order of acquittal or imposing of sentence in the conviction, the same may not be sustainable -- Appeal allowed, summoning of appellant u/s 319 of Cr.P.C. quashed and set aside. Judgment by Constitutional Bench in Sukhpal Singh Khaira’s case (2023) 1 SCC 289 : 2022 INSC 1252 = (2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 17296 relied.

(Para 14-16)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 190, 203 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Summon of accused -- Dropping of proceedings -- Once the Magistrate takes the cognizance and issues the process against the accused, then the Magistrate cannot put the clock back and drop the proceedings – Revisional Court was not right in returning the finding that the trial court had wrongly dismissed the application for dropping of the proceedings filed by the respondent/ accused.

(Para 12)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce complaint – Account frozen -- Whether the complaint for dishonour of cheque due to the reason ‘account frozen’ is maintainable under section 138 of the Act? -- Complaint u/s 138 of the Act is maintainable even if the cheque is dishonoured due to reason ‘Account frozen’.

(Para 13, 14)

A. Indian Forest Act, 1927 (16 of 1927), Section 41, 42 – FIR under Forest Act – Acquittal -- Non-mentioning of botanical name of forest produce – Effect of -- Legislature has consciously used the botanical name with some purpose and in the absence of any evidence of the botanical name, the prosecution version that the accused had violated the Rules framed under Section 41 and thereby violated Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act is not acceptable – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 1, 17, 19, 22, 23)

B. Indian Forest Act, 1927 (16 of 1927), Section 41, 42 – FIR under Forest Act – Guchhies-forest produce -- Mere fact of not handing over the permit to the accused is not sufficient to implicate the accused when the person who had handed over the Guchhies had a valid permit with him.

(Para 21)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. -- Arrears of maintenance more than 1 year -- Warrant for realisation -- Learned Magistrate proceeded to issue a warrant for recovery of maintenance for the sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- which admittedly is arrears of maintenance of more than one year -- Once the arrears of maintenance of one year were paid, nothing survived in the petition and the warrant of realization of Rs.1,20,000/- could not have been issued by the learned Magistrate – Order set aside.

(Para 1, 9, 10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 71, 87, 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Closing of evidence – Remanding back of case for re-trial -- Trial Court acquitted the accused as material witnesses did not appear for their cross-examination and thus, their deposition could not be read in evidence -- Trial Court without resorting to the coercive method for summoning of witnesses, closed the evidence of the prosecution -- Trial Court would proceed with the trial with the examination of the witnesses afresh as per the directions given by learned Appellate Court in the impugned order -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 5-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody for more than 5 years -- An accused or an under trial has a fundamental right to speedy trial -- When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused-under trial on the ground that the charges are very serious -- Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that the charges are very serious though there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude -- Out of 48 witnesses, only about 16 to 18 witnesses have been examined – Bail allowed.

(Para 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 195 (1) (a) (i), 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174A – Proclaimed person – FIR u/s 174A of IPC – Sustainability of -- No complaint by the Court which had passed order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person -- Requisite application of mind by the Court by invoking criminal liability of the petitioner for offence u/s 174-A of IPC was apparently lacking order forming the basis of FIR -- FIR u/s 174-A of IPC quashed.

(Para 9, 10)

A. National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (34 of 2008), Section 22 – Court of Session -- Special Court – Power of -- Court of Session exercising jurisdiction of the Special Court u/s 22 Sub-section (3) of the NIA Act, can exercise all the powers that have been conferred on the Special Court under Chapter IV of the NIA Act.

(Part 31)

B. National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (34 of 2008), Section 21, 22 – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 15, 16 – UAPA -- Rejection of bail by Session Court/ Special Court -- Orders passed by the Court of Session u/s 22(3) shall be appealable u/s 21 of the NIA Act -- An appeal would lie before the Division Bench of High Court.

(Para 3, 31, 32)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Cheating -- For attracting the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, it must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses: (i) the deception of any person; (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person; and (iii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement.

(Para 14)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Fleeing away from marriage -- Cheating -- Quashing of FIR -- A hapless young woman who went along with her parents’ decision to marry  but at the last minute developed cold feet to enter a charade of a marriage – It cannot be construed to as ‘cheating’ as an offence under the IPC nor can it foist a prosecution on her -- Decision to remain silent can at best be injudicious but not dishonest -- FIR does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence of ‘cheating’ – At best, offences under Sections 417, 418 and 500 of the IPC can be said to have been made out against the Applicants -- Said three Sections are non-cognizable in nature -- FIR quashed, with liberty to initiate appropriate action as may be permissible under the law in respect of the said offences i.e., Sections 417, 418 and 500 of the IPC so advised and if he so desires.

(Para 15-17.1)