Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 368, 376(2) (n), 120-B – Rape case – Minor girl aged 15 years – Compromise between parties – Regular bail – Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has stated that she had left the house alongwith accused of her own and they had established physical relations with each other -- She also stated that she wanted to marry with accused -- Interim bail for a period of one month to perform marriage with the victim granted -- Marriage with the victim solemnised on 21.07.2020 -- Petitioners (Husband and brother-in-law) have been in custody since January, 2020, challan has already been presented -- Victim and her parents have given statements in favour of the petitioners -- Trial of the case would take time to conclude -- Ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 3-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 22 – NDPS matter – Regular bail -- 55 strips of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus capsules (total 1320 in number) and 14 plastic vials of Corex Syrup were recovered -- Petitioner was not arrested on the spot, there is no question of effecting any recovery of contraband from his conscious possession – Petitioner was arrested on 16.07.2019 -- Disclosure statement of the co-accused is not sufficient enough to establish the petitioner's culpability satisfactorily -- Petitioner is involved in nine other criminal cases, however, there is no mention of the petitioner being involved in any other case under the NDPS Act -- Long detention undergone by the petitioner, as also the fact that the trial is not likely to be commenced or completed in a reasonable time on account of the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic -- Ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 2-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 380, 452, 34 (lateron added 395, 397) – Regular bail – Compromise between the parties – Seeing the nature of accusation against the petitioners and also the fact that trial is likely to take long time due to restrictions imposed to prevent spread of Covid-19 concession of regular bail extended to the petitioners.

(Para 10-14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- 50 kg of Poppy husk weighed with bag -- Default bail – Regular bail -- In case the poppy husk had been weighed separately from the bags wherein it was contained, it would not have come under the commercial quantity -- Challan ought to have been presented within a period of 60 days, considering the fact that the recovery was not of commercial quantity, which has not been done -- There is delay in the presentation of challan – Bail allowed.

(Para 5-7)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 366-A -- Procuration of Minor girl – Doubt created by defence – Consideration of -- Sweeping generalisations and superficial analysis – Permissibility of -- Reasoning is generic and is premised upon generalisations which may not be necessarily true always -- It is indisputable that parents would not ordinarily endanger the reputation of their minor daughter merely to falsely implicate their opponents, but such clichés ought not to be the sole basis of dismissing reasonable doubts created and/or defences set out by the accused.

(Para 10)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 366-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- Procuration of Minor girl -- Father eye-witness – Delay in 5 days in FIR – Effect of -- Five-day delay in registration of the FIR gains importance -- Difficult to appreciate that a father would await a second incident to happen before moving the law into motion -- Sweeping assumptions concerning delays in registration of FIRs for sexual offences, send a problematic signal to society and create opportunities for abuse by miscreants -- Instead, the facts of each individual case and the behaviour of the parties involved ought to be analysed by courts before reaching a conclusion on the reason and effect of delay in registration of FIR.

(Para 11)

C. Constitution of India, Article 136 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 366-A -- Re-appreciation of evidence by Supreme Court -- Ordinarily, the Supreme Court ought not to reappreciate evidence -- However, where the courts below have dealt with the material-on-record in a cavalier or mechanical manner which is likely to cause gross injustice, then the Court in such exceptional circumstances may justifiably reappraise the evidence to advance the cause of justice -- Such re-assessment ought not to take place routinely and ought not to become substitution of an otherwise plausible view taken by the Courts below.

(Para 16)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 366-A -- Procuration of Minor girl -- Contradictions highlighted by defence -- Reversal of Burdon of proof – Permissibility of -- Trial Court has summarily disregarded the contradictions highlighted by the defense side, on the premise that such contradictions had no material bearing and that there was no reason to disbelieve the prosecutrix -- High Court too has opined that PW-1 and PW-2 have completely corroborated each other and their testimonies were impeccable -- These reasons are not only contrary to the record but they also lead to an impermissible reversal of the burden of proof imposed in criminal trials.

(Para 17)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 – Plausible version by accused – Analysis of – Requirements of law -- Any alternate version of events or interpretation proffered by the accused must be carefully analysed and considered by the trial Court in compliance with the mandate of Section 313(4) -- Such opportunity is a valuable right of the accused to seek justice and defend oneself -- Failure of the trial Court to fairly apply its mind and consider the defence, could endanger the conviction itself -- Unlike the prosecution which needs to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused merely needs to create reasonable doubt or prove their alternate version by mere preponderance of probabilities – Held, once a plausible version has been put forth in defence at the Section 313 CrPC examination stage, then it is for the prosecution to negate such defense plea.

(Para 21)

F. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 506 -- Criminal Intimidation -- Proving the intention to cause alarm or compel doing/abstaining from some act, and not mere utterances of words, is a pre-requisite of successful conviction under Section 506 of IPC -- Trial Court has undertaken no such separate analysis or recorded any finding on this count, thus calling into question the conviction for criminal intimidation – Conviction set aside.

(Para 25, 26)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 10,12 -- Anticipatory bail by minor/ juvenile – Maintainability of -- An inference cannot drawn that the legislature intended to debar a juvenile from seeking relief of pre-arrest bail -- Children below age of 18 years coming within definition of juvenile be treated with kindness and compassion even if they are found in conflict with law – Could not be the  intention of the legislature that such juvenile should be first apprehended and then produce before Juvenile Justice Board -- Petition is found to be maintainable.

(Para 1,7,8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Default bail – Delay in furnishing bail bonds – Effect of -- Petitioner did “avail of” his right u/s 167(2) of the Code and furnished personal bail bond with surety, which was accepted and attested by the Court, he would be deemed to have been released from custody -- Petitioner was not released because two other cases were pending against him – Surety withdrew the surety furnished by him -- Court permitted the petitioner to furnish fresh bail bond with surety -- Since he was in custody in other cases, therefore, he did not furnish the fresh bail bond with surety – After granted bail in other cases, petitioner requested the Court to accept the personal bail bond with surety as directed vide earlier order, which was declined – Held, mere delay in furnishing personal bail bonds/surety cannot visit the petitioner with adverse consequences and the order granting bail u/s 167(2) of the Code does not cease to exist or comes to an end or stand eclipsed -- Petitioner is directed to furnish personal bail bonds with surety and thereafter ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 11)

B. Constitution of India, Article 141 – Judgment passed by Supreme Court of India -- Courts below ignoring the judgment by saying not applicable, without discussion – Permissibility of -- Ld. Court below, in the order has taken notice of the judgment, but refuses to follow the same by observing that “these judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case” – Held, a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on all Courts in the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India -- No doubt, the ratio decidendi laid down in a judgment is binding and not obiter dicta -- However, before distinguishing judgment, the Court is required to analyse that what is the ratio laid down in the judgment and thereafter, proceed to explain the same -- Manner in which the ld. Court below has ignored the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not appreciable.

(Para 11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 7A -- Default bail – Right of – Accused on interim Bail – Effect of -- Petitioner remaining behind bars for a period of less than two weeks till date cannot cry foul and ask for bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

(Para 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A – Kidnaping – Compromise quashing – Petitioner and girls were minor at relevant time -- No evidence of actual commission of an offence under the POCSO Act, warranting to take a stricter view – Fit case for exercise of inherent powers so as to give a quietus to the issue – FIR and all proceedings pertaining thereto are quashed.

(Para 1, 5-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – NDPS case -- Conviction for 1 year – Sentence reduced to already undergone --  Appellant has undergone about 09 months, is a very poor person and has his own family to support -- Appeal partly allowed and the sentence reduced to the period already undergone by him – Fine also reduced from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.4,000/- to be deposited by appellant within a period of 03 months.

(Para 14, 15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 406, 120-B, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Keeping in view the cumulative facts that there was relationship interse the parties from the year 2014 till the application was given in the year 2019 and they had also travelled out of station to various places, it would be a moot question as such as to whether an offence u/s 376 IPC is made out -- Similarly whether there was any cheating and inducement -- Petitioner has already undergone 5 months and 10 days imprisonment -- Considerable time shall be taken in concluding the trial especially in view of the Covid-19 Pandemic, petitioner has undergone sufficient period of detention and he is entitled for the benefit of regular bail.

(Para 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Appeal against conviction -- Dismissed in default – Permissibility of – Appeal against conviction cannot be dismissed in default but must be taken up and decided on merits even if the appellant in-person or the counsel representing him, is not present – Judgment and order set aside – Matter remanded to be disposed of on merits -- Meanwhile, considering that the appellant has been in jail for a period of almost 11 years, bail granted. K. S. Panduranga’s case (2013) 3 SCC 721 relied.

(Para 3-7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- Contents of FIR – Amendment in – Registration of FIR -- Later on, by registering two DDR certain new facts were added in the FIR, a procedure which is unknown to the criminal law – Held, there is no such provision in Cr.P.C. for amending the contents of the FIR.

(Para 22)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Allegation of cheating and forgery – Anticipatory bail -- Dispute regarding agreement to sell and receiving of Rs.10 lacs -- Petitioner No.1 is ready to deposit the said amount in the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, subject to final outcome of the case, to show his bona fide -- Admitted case of the complainant that they had business transactions with the petitioners and have already filed suit for recovery – Held, entire case is based upon the documentary evidence for which the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required -- Petitioners are directed to be released on interim bail -- Two month time granted to deposit the amount of Rs.10 lacs before the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate without prejudice to their right of defence.

(Para 24-26)

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 1 -- POCSO Act was enforced on 14.11.2012, therefore, the incident which occurred on the eve of Lohri festival in 2011 cannot be made basis to try and convict the appellant under POCSO Act.

(Para 28)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 164 – Contents of FIR – Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. – Deposition before court – Improvements  in -- Slight change in the facts -- One cannot be expected to have eidetic/photographic memory -- Natural variation do happen and such depositions are considered and relied upon by the courts after its careful analysis.

(Para 34)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 – FIR – Contents of -- FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia of the entire case of the prosecution -- An FIR is a mere first information sent to the prosecuting agency for setting criminal law in motion -- It is wrong to expect that in the FIR, complete detail of all the incidents must be disclosed -- An FIR is not expected to contain the proposed evidence to be produced by the prosecution.

(Para 35)

D. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8, 42 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), 354-A -- Sentence cannot be awarded both under POCSO Act and Indian Penal Code simultaneously with respect to the offences enlisted in the Section 42 of POCSO Act -- Section 354-A overlaps to certain extent with offence u/s 7 of POCSO Act – Trial court committed an error in convicting the appellant u/s 354-A IPC as well as Sections 8 of POCSO Act -- Sentence awarded to the appellant u/s 354-A is set aside.

(Para 51, 52)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211  -- Framing of charge – Prima-facie -- At the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to sift and weigh the prosecution material on record only for the limited purposes to find out if it, prima-facie, discloses the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence against the accused and their involvement in the crime.

(Para 9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211  -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 -- Attempt to murder –Framing of charge – Intention or knowledge – Prima facie -- Intention has to be absolute and specific and cannot be confused with the recklessness of the offender -- Unless and until this necessary ingredient is present, the charge u/s 307 IPC would not be made out -- Court has to satisfy itself that at least, prima-facie, the act by accused irrespective of its result was done with such intention or knowledge and under the circumstances, as mentioned in the section.

(Para 13)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211  -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45 -- Medical opinion -- Framing of charge -- Medical opinion given by a doctor is only a guiding factor for the Courts and the opinion does not carry a binding effect -- Courts are free to examine and evaluate the nature of injuries independently to arrive at a just conclusion.

(Para 15)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 326 – Attempt to murder – Injury on head – Relevance of -- Merely because the injury was caused on the head, this alone would not be sufficient to charge for the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC -- Nowhere mentioned that the assailants had come with an intention to commit murder -- Nature of injury does not, prima-facie, make out an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC -- Considering the nature of the weapon (Spade/kassi) used while causing grievous hurt, a prima-facie case u/s 326 IPC would be made out for charge.

(Para 15,17)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211  -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 447 -- Criminal trespass – Joint land – Framing of charge – Partition suit is still pending and rights of co-sharers are yet to eb determined -- Land in question was described as joint -- Necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of criminal trespass punishable u/s 447 IPC are not made out.

(Para 16)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – Default bail – Covid-19 restriction – Effect of -- Neither eclipsed the time prescribed u/s 167(2) of Cr.P.C. nor the restrictions which have been imposed during the lockdown announced by the Government shall operate as any restriction on the rights of an accused as protected by Section 167(2) regarding his indefeasible right to get a default bail on non-submission of charge sheet within the time prescribed.

(Para 25, 26)

B. Principle of Comity of Courts  -- All Courts including the High Courts and the Supreme Court have to follow a principle of Comity of Courts -- A Bench whether coordinate or Larger, has to refrain from making any uncharitable observation on a decision even though delivered by a Bench of a lesser coram -- A Bench sitting in a Larger coram may be right in overturning a judgment on a question of law, which jurisdiction a Judge sitting in a coordinate Bench does not have -- In any case, a Judge sitting in a coordinate Bench or a Larger Bench has no business to make any adverse comment or uncharitable remark on any other judgment.

(Para 33)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 304-B, 406 – Dowry death – Regular bail -- Custody since 25.07.2018 – Trial is likely to take some time -- An application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the prosecution for summoning the additional accused -- Covid-19 pandemic situation -- Courts are not working at full strength, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 2,6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 336, 353, 186, 212, 216-A, 148/149 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 1959), Sections 25/54 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- No injury is attributed to the petitioner, he is 24 years of age, is in custody for over 01 year -- Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Concession of regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(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)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 61, 85 – Regular bail -- 85 injections of Avil and 85 injections of Buprenorphine each containing 2 ml. are stated to have been recovered from the petitioner – Petitioner is in custody for over one year and four months; he is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act -- Orders of the Coordinate Benches, the COVID-19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Concession of regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(Para 1,5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3), 173(2),  203 – Registration of FIR – Cancellation report – Protest petition – Dismissal of complaint u/s 203 Cr.P.C. -- Whether amounts to rejection of application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. -- Magistrate, u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. directed the police to register a criminal case, investigate and submit police report in 90 days -- Police after investigation submitted a report u/s 173(2) that the accusations were false – Protest petition was registered as complaint case -- Magistrate, after hearing the respondent/complainant, not being satisfied, dismissed the complaint u/s 203 Cr.P.C. – Held, it was therefore not a rejection of an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3), 173(2),  203, 401 – Registration of FIR – Cancellation report – Dismissal of protest petition u/s 203 Cr.P.C. – Right of accused for hearing in revision -- Additional Sessions Judge, in a revision preferred by the respondent against the dismissal of his complaint, set aside the dismissal order, effectively restoring the complaint case arising out of a protest petition and directed further inquiry by the Magistrate -- High Court declined to interfere with the order – Held, restoration of the complaint by the Additional Sessions Judge was undoubtedly to the prejudice of the appellant -- Matter is remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge to hear the revision application afresh after notice to the appellant also.

(Para 5-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125, 362 -- Petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C dismissed in default – Restoration application also dismissed – Review or amend – Power of -- Criminal court cannot allow or review its own order except correcting clerical errors in it, it is well settled as there is no provision for review under the Code -- Held, order dismissing the petition for maintenance in default can be recalled or set aside and the case can be restored to its original position for effective adjudication on merits – Impugned order set aside and petition u/s 125 of the Code is ordered to be restored to its original position to be heard on merits.

(Para 2,3,6-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B -- Forgery and fabrication – Anticipatory bail -- Allegations that petitioner forged and fabricated the documents to avoid the tax liability -- All the documents are already in possession of the police -- Whether the petitioner had any role to play in the entire gamut or he has been made scapegoat, as alleged, can be ascertained once the petitioner joins the investigation vis a vis the documentary evidence already seized – Petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail.

(Para 5,6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 22 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Co-accused was apprehended while in possession of 12 injections of Bupronorphine (2 ml each), 12 injections of Avil (10 ml each) and 50 grams of ‘Heroin’ -- Upon interrogation she disclosed that she had purchased the aforesaid contraband from the petitioner -- Since the petitioner was never arrested at the spot and no recovery was effected from him and he is nominated on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused, it will certainly be debatable as to whether the aforesaid disclosure statement would be admissible in evidence against the petitioner or not -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case, it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

(Para 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 446 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Non-appearance of accused -- Forfeiture of bail bond -- Summoned through non-bailable warrants – Anticipatory bail – Maintainability of -- Held, it is always open to approach the Special Court at the first instance to show the grounds as such for non-appearance and pray for necessary relief – Having not approached, anticipatory bail petition as such for the said relief is not maintainable.

(Para 1-5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157 -- FIR to Ilaka Magistrate/CJM with delay of 11 days – Effect of -- Held, delay in compliance of Section 157 of the Code cannot, in itself, be a good ground to acquit the appellant -- Albeit, this fact has to be considered at the time of examining the credibility of the version of the eye-witnesses.

(Para 3, 4)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157 -- Murder -- Name of deceased missing in proceedings – Effect of -- Fact that the field unit had not recorded the name of the deceased in the proceedings, is inconsequential for these details are duly mentioned in the panchayatnama and other documents which were prepared on the same day and were sent to Doctor (PW-3) who had conducted the post mortem -- Lapse on the part of the field unit in non-mentioning the name of the deceased would not justify an order of acquittal.

(Para 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(C), 36(A) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 173(2) -- Challan without Chemical Examiner report – Default bail – Right of --  Held, State is bound to annex the report of Chemical Examiner along with the challan u/s 173 Cr.P.C. -- On the other side, if the report is not accompanied with the challan, then the prosecution can seek time for placing on record the said report – When the first application for grant of default bail was filed, no application for extension of time was made by the prosecution – Held, petitioner deserves the concession of bail under the provisions of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., Ajit Singh’s case CRR No.4659 of 2015 = Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14121 relied.

(Para 2-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 29 – Regular bail -- 7040 intoxicant tablets and 3000 intoxicant capsules recovered from co-accused, no recovery from the petitioner -- Interim bail granted by the Ld. Trial Court on 03.09.2019, thereafter, surrendered on 17.02.2020, not misused the concession of interim bail – In the disclosure made by the main accused, there is no allegation that petitioner facilitated or abated the commission of the offence – Mere allegation is that petitioner also used to purchase the contraband from “K” -- “K” is found to be innocent during investigation -- Charges are yet to be framed, trial will take sufficient long time -- Further incarceration would not serve any purpose – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 8,9)

A. Constitution of India, Article 32 – Fundamental Rights – Protection of -- Article 32 of the Constitution constitutes a recognition of the constitutional duty entrusted to Supreme Court to protect the fundamental rights of citizens.

(Para 32)

B. Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a) – Right to speech and expression – Fundamental right of Journalist – Airing of views -- Exercise of journalistic freedom lies at the core of speech and expression protected by Article 19(1)(a) -- Exercise of that fundamental right is not absolute and is answerable to the legal regime enacted with reference to the provisions of Article 19(2) -- Right of a journalist under Article 19(1)(a) is no higher than the right of the citizen to speak and express.

(Para 32)

C. Constitution of India, Article 32 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 173 -- F.I.R. -- Allegation against police -- Transfer of Investigation to CBI -- Power to transfer an investigation must be used “sparingly” and only “in exceptional circumstances” – An accused person does not have a choice in regard to the mode or manner in which the investigation should be carried out or in regard to the investigating agency – Court do not find that levelling such allegations would by and itself constitute a sufficient ground for the transfer of the investigation.

(Para 35-44)

D. Constitution of India, Article 32 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of FIR – Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 32 – Whether the allegations contained in the FIR do or do not make out any offence as alleged will not be decided in pursuance of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32, to quash the FIR -- Petitioner must be relegated to the pursuit of the remedies available under the CrPC -- Petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy available before the High Court – Held, a petition under Article 32 is not maintainable.

(Para 49)

E. Constitution of India, Article 32 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- One cause of action – FIR against -- Multiple FIRs and complaints – Quashing of -- Multiple FIRs and complaints in several states and in the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir – Fairness in the administration of criminal justice would warrant the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 32 to quash all other FIRs -- Filing of multiple FIRs arising out of the same telecast of the show hosted by the petitioner is an abuse of the process and impermissible -- Quashing of those FIRs would not amount to the expression of any opinion on the merits of the FIR which is being investigated.

(Para 2, 51)

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

(Para 1, 14, 15)

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

(Para 1,18,19)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12 -- Maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. – Maintenance under DV Act – Liability of husband to pay – Both proceedings are independent, however, while fixing the maintenance to the wife, earning capacity of the husband has to be seen as well -- Husband ordered to pay Rs.8,000/- p.m. u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and Rs.8,000/- p.m. under DV act – Held, petitioner-husband is at liberty to pay the said amount either in the terms of the order u/s 125 Cr.P.C. or under the D.V. Act.

(Para 7-14)

B. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12, 19 -- House rent for accommodation – JMIC awarded Rs.5,000/- p.m. towards house rent -- Rs.8,000/- p.m. maintenance out of pension of Rs.23,000 p.m. already awarded -- An additional amount of Rs.5000/- towards rent would mean he is paying a total of Rs.13,000/- out of Rs.23,000, which is more than 50% what he gets -- No doubt, the petitioner being the husband is duty bound to maintain his wife and allow her to live life with dignity according to their social status and strata, but it has to be within his means -- Amount of Rs. 5000/- towards rent is highly excessive – Amount reduced to Rs. 1000/- per month.

(Para 14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 -- Cheating for getting employment -- Regular bail -- Co-accused are alleged to have made the fraudulent assurance to the complainant of getting employment for him in FCI and to have received the amount from him -- Petitioner is merely alleged to have accompanied the complainant for his joining on asking of his co-accused and did not make any fraudulent representation and did not receive any amount from the complainant -- Question as to involvement of the petitioner in commission of the subject offences is to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be produced during trial -- Due to pandemic of Covid-19 trial is likely to take long time -- Petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail, he is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 9,10)

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s) – Offence under SC/ST Act – Ingredients of offence – Strict interpretation -- To constitute the offence under the Act, it must be alleged that the accused intentionally insulted or intimidated with intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe in any public place within public view -- Since these are the penal provisions, the same are to be given a strict construction and if any of the ingredients are found lacking, it would not constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act.

(Para 10-15)

B. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s) – Offence under SC/ST Act – Talks on mobile – Mens rea -- Alleged conversation over the mobile phone was not in a public gaze nor witnessed by any third party, the alleged use of caste words cannot be said to have been committed within the public view -- Merely uttering such wrong words in the absence of any public view does not show any intention or mens rea to humiliate the complainant who besides being Sarpanch, belongs to Scheduled Caste community -- It would not, thus, ipso-facto, constitute acts of commission of offence, which are capable of being taken cognizance under the SC and ST Act, 1989.

(Para 10-12)

C. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(i)(r), 3(i)(s) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227, 228 -- Offence under SC/ST Act and IPC -- Discharge by Trial court – Power of -- It is a settled law that if two views are possible and one gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at that stage, it is not to be seen whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal.

(Para 13)

A. Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Section 24(2) -- Chemical Examiner’s report – Manufacturer right -- Copy of – Although Section 24(2) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 does not itself lay down that Chemical Examiner’s report is to be conveyed to the manufacturing firm or to other accused but it is expected in the interest of natural justice and fair trial that a copy of the Chemical Examiner's report be conveyed to the manufacturing firm also especially if the manufacturing firm is also to be prosecuted.

(Para 12)

B. Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Section 24(2) -- Chemical Examiner’s report – Re-examination of – Right of -- Provisions of section 24(2) of the Act do not mandate that each and every of the accused is to be afforded an individual opportunity of re-analysis -- If in a given case, re-analysis has been got done at the instance of any one of the accused, then certainly there is no need for any further re-analysis.

(Para 13-15)

C. Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 -- Managing Director – Role of -- Managing director need not be assigned a specific work as he, in such capacity is overall in-charge of conduct of business of the firm -- Thus, cannot escape from his liability on account of the insecticide having been found misbranded which was manufactured by the company of which he is the Managing Director.

(Para 23-25)

D. Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 -- Quality Incharge – Role of -- A person who is monitoring the quality of the product being manufactured by the firm is the key person who would be responsible for ensuring quality of the product -- He is also liable to be prosecuted on account of misbranding of the insecticide in question.

(Para 27)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190 – Complaint – Contents of -- Complaint is not expected to be encyclopedic and it is only during the course of trial that the complainant can fully substantiate the averments and allegations made in the complaint as regards the role and responsibility of the accused.

(Para 28)

F. Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 – Godown Incharge – Role of -- Since the insecticide in question, in any case is in sealed condition, therefore the Godown Incharge whose primary job is to keep the articles intact and to further pass on the same to the Distributors and Dealers and is himself not supposed to sell the same cannot be said to have committed any offence under Insecticides Act 1968 so as to have rendered himself liable for prosecution -- As such, the complaint qua him deserves to be quashed.

(Para 29)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 377 (2) – Appeal against inadequacy of sentence – Accused’s right to plead for acquittal – Held, accused is justified in contending that it is open to the said accused to challenge the finding and order of conviction recorded against him in the appeal filed by the State -- In the appeal filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the accused may plead for his acquittal or for reduction of the sentence.

(Para 6)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 148, 304 Part I, 326 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Total five accused, State pursuing appeal against one accused -- Death of deceased by one fatal blow on the head, which was with the intention of causing his death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the case would be covered by Section 304 Part I, IPC -- It is certainly not a case to simply proceed u/s Section 326 of the IPC -- Accused convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 Part I and Section 148, IPC.

(Para 1, 12-16)

A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 2(c), 2(c)(xi) – Deemed University -- Trustee of the Trust running Deemed University – Whether Public Servant :

--       “Deemed University” is not excluded from the ambit of the term “University” under Section 2(c)(xi) of the PC Act.

Object of the PC Act was not only to prevent the social evil of bribery and corruption, but also to make the same applicable to individuals who might conventionally not be considered public servants.

--       It cannot be stated that a “Deemed University” and the officials therein, perform any less or any different a public duty, than those performed by a University simpliciter, and the officials therein.

Discharge order against respondent-accused-trustee set aside – Trial Court directed to proceed with the case.

(Para 3, 17, 34-44, 53-57)

B. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 8, 10 and 13 (1)(b) and 13(2) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227 -- Framing of charge – Discharge of accused – Power u/s 227 of Cr.P.C. – Scope of -- Respondent allegedly was collecting certain extra amount over the prescribed fees on the pretext of allowing the students to fill up their examination forms – Alleged amount was a condition precedent before filling up the forms, to appear for the examinations -- Large number of cheques which were found during the raid is more than sufficient to establish a grave suspicion as to the commission of the alleged offence -- Prima facie, a grave suspicion is made out that the respondent was rendering his service by dealing with the students and the examination aspect of the University – Held, jurisdiction of this Court, with regards to Section 227 of CrPC, is limited and should not be exercised by conducting roving enquiries on the aspect of factual inferences -- Case is not an appropriate one to have exercised the power u/s 227 to discharge the accused-respondent.

(Para 52-56)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape case -- Compromise quashing -- Money changed hands – Would certainly fall within the ambit of 'undue influence' as it would amount to bestowing an unscrupulous gift to influence the prosecutrix from pursuing criminal proceedings against the accused – Serious and grave allegations levelled by the prosecutrix against the petitioner who unabashedly indulged in blackmailing and threatening her and her family -- Allegations levelled in the FIR, prima facie reflects the mental depravity of the petitioner who tried to exploit a hapless married woman by fraudulently luring her into a relationship with him, raping her and thereafter putting her matrimonial ties with her husband in peril by coercing her to continue her dalliance with him -- Not a fit case to invoke inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR.

(Para 12-19)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Summoning of witnesses u/s 311 Cr.P.C – Power of -- Cardinal principle is that the presence of the witnesses and the production of evidence is necessary for the just decision of the case -- With this in mind the evidence proposed to be adduced by the petitioner deserves to be examined -- It is not mandatory for the trial court to summon a witness, if his evidence is not essential for the correct decision of the case.

(Para 9-11)

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

(Para 2, 17-19)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Application for cross-examine the prosecution witness – Accused’s right -- Procedural law is meant to prevent failure of justice on account of mistake of either of the party to bring on record valuable evidence -- Cross examination of prosecution witnesses in any case would advance the cause of justice -- Technicality, if any, should not come in the way of substantial justice – One opportunity needs to be granted to the petitioner for cross examining the prosecution witnesses -- For the delay caused by the petitioner, he would however, deposit a cost(s) of Rs.5000/- with the District Legal Services Authority.

(Para 7-11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 36(A) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 173(2) -- Challan without CFSL report – Default bail – Right of -- Report u/s 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the police before expiry of the period of 60 days without the CFSL report, which cannot be said to be incomplete -- Accused is not entitled to bail u/s 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. on the ground of filing of incomplete report.

(Para 29)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 324/34, 452/120-B, 506 -- Compromise of matter after conviction – Held, there is no statutory embargo against invoking powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C., after conviction of accused by the trial Court and during pendency of the appeal against such conviction -- Conviction maintained however, their order of sentence recorded by the trial court under Sections 324/34, 452/120-B and 506 IPC is modified to the period, if any, already undergone by them.

(Para 1,7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 308, 323, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Attempt to murder -- Compromise quashing – Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue – FIR u/s 308, 323, 506, 34 of the IPC (Challan presented u/s 307, 323, 506, 34 of the IPC) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 11, 12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 379-B, 454, 323, 506 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Snatching case – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue -- FIR alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner, on the basis of compromise subject to costs of Rs.10,000/-.

(Para 6, 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- Maintenance to wife – Wife running play-way school – Non-production of Pan card and Bank account details by wife – Effect of -- Held, once the respondent-husband had taken a specific plea that the petitioner-wife was running a play-way school and coupled with her own admission that she is maintaining a bank account and had a PAN card, the petitioner should have adduced evidence to substantiate that she had no source of income -- Family Court rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands and is not entitled to any maintenance.

(Para 14)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – NDPS case -- Recovery of 1 Kg 800 gms of ganja – R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default further S.I. for a period of 2 weeks – Appellant is not a previous convict, he is a poor person having his wife, who has since died – Appellant has undergone actual imprisonment for a period of 08 months and 04 days – Quantity of contraband is marginally above the small quantity and in such circumstances, some more leniency in the matter of sentence can be extended to the appellant -- Sentence of the imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone without alteration with regard to the sentence of fine.

(Para 3, 11-13)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Cheque bounce case – Cheque lost plea – Denial of signature on cheques -- Case of the accused that the three cheques were lost but neither any complaint to the police nor any information was given to the bank qua the same at any stage -- Accused/ petitioner has denied his signatures on the cheques in question, but has failed to produce any expert nor any such objection has been raised by the drawee bank -- Adverse inference drawn against the petitioner/accused.

(Para 15,16)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 -- Cheque bounce case – Revisional jurisdiction -- In a revision petition, High Court is not to re-appreciate the evidence like Court of an appeal - - Not pointed out as to how the findings given by the courts below are perverse or against the evidence -- Nothing has been pointed out as to which material evidence has been misread and which material evidence has not considered by the courts below -- Presumption u/s 139 of the N.I.Act arose against the accused and it was first for him to rebut the same -- But he failed to rebut the presumption -- Rather, the complainant led even cogent evidence to prove his case beyond any doubt -- Concurrent findings given by both the courts below based on appreciation of evidence in right perspective – Revision dismissed.

(Para 17-22)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 323, 148, 149 – Kidnapping matter -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue -- FIR u/s 363, 323, 148, 149 IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 9,10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of FIR – Settlement between parties – No allegation against the petitioner that he was directly involved in the rash and negligent work of the Contractor, which resulted into death of two workers – No offence under Section 304-A IPC is made out against the petitioner -- Legal heirs/family members of two deceased have received Rs. 10,40,000/- each as compensation and have shown their satisfaction that they have received sufficient amount -- Even Insurance Company has paid an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- to the legal heirs/family members of each deceased as well as the State of Haryana has also paid a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to legal heirs/family members of each deceased -- In view of the above facts and circumstance and also in view of the fact that the matter stands amicably settled, the petition is allowed and FIR u/s 304-A IPC with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. hereby quashed.

(Para 17-21)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 365, 366-A -- FIR u/s 365 – Challan u/s 363, 366-A – Run-away couple marriage – Proclaimed person -- Compromise quashing of FIR – Petitioner no.1/girl had gone out of her own free will and solemnised marriage with petitioner no.2 -- Offence u/s 363, 366A of IPC not made out against the petitioner no.2 – Petition for police protection was also filed by the petitioners -- FIR and all consequential proceedings including order declaring petitioner No. 2 as proclaimed person being abuse of process are liable to be quashed for securing the ends of justice -- In view of the settlement between the parties, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak -- Continuation of the criminal case will subject petitioner No. 2 to great oppression and injustice – FIR and consequential proceedings including order declaring petitioner no. 2 as proclaimed person are quashed.

(Para 11-16)