Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Conviction in murder case – Delay in filing appeal – Dismissal of – Permissibility of -- Appeal was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that there was delay of 1192 days in preferring the appeal -- Held, since the matter arose out of conviction u/s 302 IPC, the High Court ought to have condoned the delay and heard the matter on merit – Matter remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.

(Para 3-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 --Superdari of vehicle -- Registered owner – Possessor of vehicle – Right of -- Trial court issued release order in favour of complainant/possessor of vehicle – Order affirmed by  revisional court -- Both court below gave finding that prima facie the petitioner has transferred ownership in favour of complainant though he remain registered owner – Order in favour of complainant/possessor of vehicle, upheld.

 (Para 1-4,13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 – Default bail given – New sections/offences added – Anticipatory bail applied -- Petitioner was given benefit of bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. as challan was not presented against him – Main case of the prosecution remains the same regarding disproportionate assets – Held, if some other offences have been added in the FIR, even then, the petitioner is not required for further interrogation purposes etc. – Petition allowed, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail in newly added Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

(Para 6-8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 319 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 147, 448, 294(b) and 506 Additional accused – Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C – Vague details in FIR/161 Statement – Effect of -- In the FIR/ 161 statement, the names of the appellants or any other description have not been given so as to identify them – No assertion in respect of the villages to which the additional accused belong – Allegations in the FIR are vague and can be used any time to include any person in the absence of description in the FIR to identify such person -- Held, no strong or cogent evidence to make the appellants stand the trial for the offences u/s 147, 448, 294(b) and 506 of IPC.

(Para 14)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 -- Additional accused – Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C – Strong and cogent evidence – Requirement of -- Additional accused cannot be summoned u/s 319 in casual and cavalier manner in the absence of strong and cogent evidence – U/s 319, additional accused can be summoned only if there is more than prima facie case as is required at the time of framing of charge but which is less than the satisfaction required at the time of conclusion of the trial convicting the accused.

(Para 14)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3), 173(8), 190, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204 – Complaint to Magistrate – Cognizance  of – Nature of -- In case the Magistrate takes the cognizance of the offence and proceeds u/Ss 200 to 204 Cr.P.C then it would be tried as a 'complaint case', however, if at the stage prior to cognizance, the police is asked, u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C, to investigate and to file a report; then Magistrate would be taking the cognizance on the police report, therefore, it would be tried as a case 'on police report' -- However, it is purely the discretion of the Magistrate to decide the course of action, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case; whether to order an investigation and to seek a report from the police or not – As per section 202 even during the trial of the complaint case, if at any stage, the Magistrate thinks it fit, he can again direct the police to conduct the investigation qua any aspect -- In case of a trial on police report, the Magistrate has the power to order investigation on any aspect at any time; u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C.

(Para 12, 13)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3), 203, 204 -- Complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Power of Magistrate – Speaking order – Requirement of -- If no reasons are required to recorded by the police for registration of FIR and for investigating the same, then there is no question of the Magistrate being required to record reasons for the same -- Non-recording of reasons does not vitiate the order of the Magistrate -- Such an order of Magistrate has been taken at par with supervisory administrative or executive order; instead of taking it as part of a strictly judicial process.

(Para 15-18)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) -- Complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Affidavit – Requirement of -- Insisting upon affidavits at the stage of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C may not be desirable; because an affidavit is a sworn statement, which if submitted before the Magistrate, may not be possible for him to ignore at that time; even if it turns out to be false later on.

(Para 19)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) -- Section 156(3), 397, 401, 482 – Complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Investigaiton order – Revisional jurisdiction -- Revision can be maintained only on one ground; that the Magistrate himself was not competent to take cognizance of the offences qua which he has ordered investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.

(Para 20-24)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) -- Section 156(3), 397, 401, 482 – Complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Investigaiton order – Quashing of FIR -- Remedy of – Person affected can approach the High Court for quashing of the FIR, like any other FIR, on the grounds for which an FIR can be quashed -- But in such petition as well, the challenge has to be to the FIR on merits and not to the order of the Magistrate.

(Para 25)

F. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) -- Section 156(3), 397, 401, 482 – Complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Fixing the case for preliminary evidence – Second revision -- Inherent power of High Court -- Petition challenging judgment passed by the ASJ whereby he has upheld the Order passed by the JMIC, declining to send the complaint of the petitioner to the police; for investigation and instead, ordering recording of preliminary evidence in the complaint -- Petitioner only tried to get adjudicated upon correctness, validity and propriety of the order passed by the courts below -- Hence this is nothing but a second revision petition in the garb of invoking the powers of the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C -- Petition not maintainable.

(Para 30)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Offence by Company – Liability of Director – Quashing of Complaint by High court -- Law requires that the complaint must contain a specific averment that the Director was in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the company’s business at the time when the offence was committed – High Court, in deciding a quashing petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C., must consider whether the averment made in the complaint is sufficient or if some unimpeachable evidence has been brought on record which leads to the conclusion that the Director could never have been in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time -- High Court must exercise its power u/s 482, Cr.P.C. when it is convinced, from the material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court.

(Para 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 102, 451, 457 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder case – Seizure of truck – Requirement of -- Truck in question could not have been directed to be seized since there is no evidence that it was used in the commission of the offence of murder -- Merely because there were rival claims about the ownership of the truck; that does not warrant the seizure of the truck -- Truck in question ordered to be released on Sapurdari to its registered owner.

(Para 2, 3)

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

(Para 8, 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Cheating -- Anticipatory bail -- Condition requiring the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh), that too directly to the informant/complainant, is harsh and unacceptable -- Condition set aside -- Appellant must comply with other conditions specified in the impugned order for availing the benefit of anticipatory bail.

(Para 5)

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

(Para 3-6)

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

(Para 1,4,5)

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

(Para 14-18)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 166-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 156(3), 482 -- Complaint against SHO -- Summoning order – Quashing of complaint and summoning order -- Two Complaints u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.c. dismissed by the Illaqa Magistrate – Petitioner being SHO of the area has not registered FIR on same complaint -- Allegations against the petitioner that he has failed to exercise his power u/s 154 Cr.P.C to register an FIR are apparently illegal and not sustainable as the petitioner being SHO of area cannot form an opinion other than formed by Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(Para 1, 26, 27)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Cancellation of anticipatory bail – Opportunity of hearing – Requirement of – When the order was passed by the High Court, the appellants were not present either in person or through counsel – Order passed by the High Court set aside, matter remitted before the High Court to pass a fresh order after hearing the appellants on the application for cancellation of bail, in the interest of justice.

(Para 3-5)

Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Sections 66(B), 66(C), 66(D), 66(E), 67, 67(A) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of FIR – Petition on various grounds -- However, during the pendency of petition, mediation took place -- Settlement/agreement arrived – Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue -- FIR and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed.

(Para 2-10)

Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Sections 3(k)(i), 29, 33 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468(2)(c), 482 -- Misbranded article -- Limitation of 3 years to file complaint – Quashing of complaint -- Limitation to prosecute starts from the date of receipt of report of public analysts and not from the date of collection of sample -- If, the complaint is filed beyond the period of limitation of three years, the same is not maintainable -- Premises was raided on 16.07.2011 – First report qua misbranding of first sample received on 25.07.2011 and second report on 01.02.2012 – Sanction applied on 19.08.2014 and the same was granted on 10.11.2014 i.e. within three months -- In case, the period of three months is excluded, the impugned complaint filed on 22.07.2015 can still easily be declared being hopelessly time barred -- Impugned complaint and summoning order along with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

(Para 6, 7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(D) -- Rape case -- Compromise to solemnise marriage -- Resile from statement – Re-examination u/s 311 Cr.P.C -- Witnesses resiled on account of the allurement of marriage and a chance of a blemish free life for the prosecutrix and, therefore, it can safely be said that the statement given in court denying that the offence of rape was committed, was not a statement given freely or without any fear -- An application u/s 311 of the Code may be allowed at any stage of trial -- Allowing witnesses to be recalled would be in consonance with the cardinal principle that the truth must prevail.

(Para 14-19)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(D) -- Application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. by Complainant – Maintainability of -- Resile from statement under assurance of marriage -- Public Prosecutor himself cross examine the witnesses after they had turned hostile in order to elicit the truth – Public Prosecutor did not raise any objection to application u/s 311 of the Code as filed by the complainant itself raising the question of maintainability, it can be safely assumed that the said application had the concurrence of the Public Prosecutor -- Once the court is of the opinion that to ensure fair trial, an application is to be allowed in order to elicit the truth, then it should not be bound down by technicalities.

(Para 14, 20-22)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 441 -- Involvement in 31 cases – Bail by trial court -- Number of Sureties – Submission that the petitioner is unable to execute the bail bonds because of the onerous conditions of bail imposed particularly the condition of producing 31 sureties – Order modified to the extent that petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 30,000/- and there shall be two sureties who shall execute the bond for Rs. 30,000/- -- Court clarified that the personal bond so executed by the Petitioner and the bond so executed by the two sureties shall hold good for all the 31 cases.

(Para 6-8)

A. Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Sections 3(k)(i),17,18,29,33 – Insecticide Rules 1971, Rule 27(5) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468,473,482 – Misbranded article -- Limitation of 3 years to file complaint – Quashing of complaint -- Report of the Government Analyst received by the complainant on 26.06.2007 -- Complaint could have been filed, at the best, within a period of 3 years from the date of receipt of report of the Government Analyst -- However, the complaint has been filed after 8 years from the said date -- No application for extension of time under provision of 473 Cr.P.C – Complaint and summoning order quashed.

(Para 10-16)

B. Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Sections 3(k)(i),17,18,29,30(3), 33 -- Insecticide Rules 1971, Rule 27(5) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468, 473, 482 – Misbranded article -- Dealer’s prosecution – Quashing of complaint -- Sample was taken as a sealed container in original packing -- This fact duly finds mention in the Form XX prepared by the Insecticide Inspector; on the spot at the time of taking of the sample -- Petitioners-dealer would be, entitled to the protection of Section 30(3) of the Insecticide Act – Initiation and continuation of a complaint and the consequent proceedings against the petitioners-dealer, are not legally justified and sustainable – Complaint and summoning order quashed.

(Para 2, 15,16)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 433 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Life imprisonment – 11 years actual sentence undergone – Total sentence undergone 14 years including remission -- Direction given to State, having regard to the peculiar factual circumstances, to consider the case of the appellant for premature release on completion of total sentence of 14 years including remission, as a special case -- In the event of any delay in taking the decision, the appellant shall be released on self-bond, on completion of fourteen years including remission, making it subject to the decision of the Competent Authority.

 (Para 3, 4)

View of Dipak Misra and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 497 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 198 – Constitution of India, Article 14, 21, 32 – Adultery – Aggrieved party – Procedure of -- Constitutional validity of – Section 497 IPC effectively creating a dent in individual dignity of women -- Emphasis on element of connivance or consent of husband tantamounts to subordination of women which violates Article 21 of Constitution – If it is treated as a crime, there would be immense intrusion into the extreme privacy of the matrimonial sphere -- It is better to be left as a ground for divorce -- As a criminal offence it will offend the two facets of Article 21 of the Constitution, namely, dignity of husband and wife, as the case may be, and the privacy attached to a relationship between the two – Held, Section 497 IPC is unconstitutional and adultery should not be treated as an offence, it is appropriate to declare Section 198 CrPC which deals with the procedure for filing a complaint in relation to the offence of adultery as unconstitutional -- When the substantive provision goes, the procedural provision has to pave the same path.

(Para 41-56)

View of R.F. Nariman, J.

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 497 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 198 – Constitution of India, Article 14, 15, 21 – Adultery – Aggrieved party – Procedure of -- Constitutional validity of – In treating a woman as chattel for the purposes of this provision, such provision discriminates against women on grounds of sex only, and must be struck down -- Section 198, CrPC is also a blatantly discriminatory provision, in that it is the husband alone or somebody on his behalf who can file a complaint against another man for this offence -- Held, Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are violative of Articles 14, 15(1), and 21 of the Constitution of India and are, therefore, struck down as being invalid.

(Para 81-86)

View of Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 497 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 198 – Constitution of India, Article 14, 15, 21 – Adultery -- Constitutional Validity – Criminal law must be in consonance with constitutional morality -- Being antithetical to the constitutional guarantees of liberty, dignity and equality, Section 497 does not pass constitutional muster – Held, Section 497 lacks an adequately determining principle to criminalize consensual sexual activity and is manifestly arbitrary -- Section 497 is a denial of substantive equality as it perpetuates the subordinate status ascribed to women in marriage and society -- Section 497 violates Article 14 of the Constitution -- Section 497 is based on gender stereotypes about the role of women and violates the non-discrimination principle embodied in Article 15 of the Constitution -- Section 497 is a denial of the constitutional guarantees of dignity, liberty, privacy and sexual autonomy which are intrinsic to Article 21 of the Constitution; and Section 497 is unconstitutional.

 (Para 153)

View of Indu Malhotra, J.

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 497 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 198 – Constitution of India, Article 14, 15, 21 – Adultery as offence -- Right to equality – Procedure to prosecute -- Constitutional validity – Section 497 is struck down as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution -- Section 198(2) of the Cr.P.C. which contains the procedure for prosecution under Chapter XX of the I.P.C. shall be unconstitutional only to the extent that it is applicable to the offence of Adultery under Section 497.

(Para 165-171)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- High Court awarded Rs.9,000/- maintenance per month -- Maintenance on the basis of notional minimum income as per the current minimum wages, is untenable -- Regard must be had to the living standard of the respondent and his family – Respondent is highly qualified and an able-bodied person; his monthly income while working in Canada in the year 2010 was over Rs.1,77,364/- -- Supreme Court had prima facie found in earlier appeal that the cause of justice would be subserved if the appellant is granted an interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- p.m. commencing from November 1, 2014 – Keeping in mind the spiralling inflation rate and high cost of living index today, respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- p.m. to the appellant towards the maintenance w.e.f. January 2010 and @ Rs.25,000/- p.m. w.e.f 1st June, 2018 until further orders.

(Para 2,13-15)

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

(Para 6-11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320, 401, 482 -- Conviction u/s 138 of the NI Act – Compounding at Revisional stage -- Conviction by Ld. JMIC upheld by Ld. ASJ -- Parties are allowed to compound the offence, consequently, judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Ld. JMIC and judgment passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge stand set aside.

(Para 6)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Affidavit in evidence – Wrong date of cheque mentioned – Re-examination of -- Application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. is allowed -- Complainant allowed to appear as a witness and submit a fresh affidavit.

(Para 2-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B, 323, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Snatching case -- Compromise/ compounding of offence after conviction -- Conviction and sentenced for 10 years – A report has been submitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, wherein it has been reported that statement of the petitioners has been recorded and compromise entered between the parties is genuine, without any pressure, coercion or undue influence – Parties allowed to compound the offence -- Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence stands set aside.

(Para 1-6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Civil and Criminal proceedings – Stay of – Automatic vacation of stay -- Proceedings remaining pending for long on account of stay needs to be remedied -- Remedy is required not only for corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases where on account of stay, civil and criminal proceedings are held up -- At times, proceedings are adjourned sine die on account of stay -- Even after stay is vacated, intimation is not received and proceedings are not taken up -- In an attempt to remedy this, situation, Directions given that :

-- in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of six months from today unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is extended.

-- In cases where stay is granted in future, the same will end on expiry of six months from the date of such order unless similar extension is granted by a speaking order.

-- The speaking order must show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalized.

-- The trial Court where order of stay of civil or criminal proceedings is produced, may fix a date not beyond six months of the order of stay so that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can commence unless order of extension of stay is produced.

(Para 35)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 482 – Constitution of India, Article 227 – Framing of charge – Challenge to – Power of -- Stay of proceedings -- Framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order -- Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution -- However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered -- Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-appreciate the matter.

-- Even where such challenge is entertained and stay is granted, the matter must be decided on day-to-day basis so that stay does not operate for an unduly long period.

-- Though no mandatory time limit may be fixed, the decision may not exceed two-three months normally.

-- If it remains pending longer, duration of stay should not exceed six months, unless extension is granted by a specific speaking order, as already indicated.

-- In all pending matters before the High Courts or other courts relating to PC Act or all other civil or criminal cases, where stay of proceedings in a pending trial is operating, stay will automatically lapse after six months from today unless extended by a speaking order on above parameters.

-- Same course may also be adopted by civil and criminal appellate/revisional courts under the jurisdiction of the High Courts.

-- Trial courts may, on expiry of above period, resume the proceedings without waiting for any other intimation unless express order extending stay is produced -- High Courts may also issue instructions to this effect and monitor the same so that civil or criminal proceedings do not remain pending for unduly period at the trial stage.

A copy of order sent to all the High Courts for necessary action.

(Para 37, 38)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 19 -- Investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Sanction required under PC Act -- Question of law sought to be raised in the appeals is as to whether prior sanction for prosecution qua allegation of corruption in respect of a public servants is required before setting in motion even the investigative process under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Complete controversy referred to aforesaid and the conundrum arising in respect of the interplay of the P.C. Act offences read with the Cr.P.C. is required to be settled by a larger Bench – Matter referred for constitution of Bench of appropriate strength.

(Para 1,36,37)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2) –  Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164 -- Age of the prosecutrix – School Leaving Certificate – Evidential Value of -- Prosecutrix gave her age as 18 years in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and when she appeared in the witness box claimed herself to be 16 years old – Entry in the school leaving certificate (Ex.P1), without proving its source, was not sufficient to conclude that the prosecutrix was minor on the date of occurrence -- Despite being referred to the dental and radiological opinion regarding the age of the prosecutrix, she was not taken thereto for examination -- Held, it can be said that the prosecutrix was major and an attempt had been made by the prosecution to withhold her correct age.

(Para 32-38)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2) –  Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164 -- Kidnapping and rape – Consenting party – Circumstantial evidence -- Conviction can be based on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix, but at the same time, it cannot be mechanically applied to every case of sexual assault -- In the first version given to the Magistrate in statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., she had stated that she had gone of her own, but later she retracted therefrom while appearing in the witness box and alleged kidnapping and rape by the accused for the obvious reason that she had succumbed to the pressure of her parents – Victims taken to Safidon in three wheeler, but she had not raised alarm – Stand of the prosecutrix that she had told the three wheeler driver about her kidnapping but no help was extended, does not convince the Court – Victims had changed three vehicles to reach Safidon, she had the opportunity to raise alarm and seek help – Place from where she had remained with the accused was a construction site where other huts were constructed – Accused used to leave her in the earthen hut for hours together, she remained there for more than four days and it is highly improbable that the stay was without her consent – Medical evidence also goes contrary to her version – Victims went missing on 25.10.2014, but the matter was reported on 27.10.2014, no explanation as to why the matter was reported so late to the police – Circumstances support to the plea of accused that the prosecutrix had left home on her own and she was neither confined, abducted or raped – Judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside, accused is acquitted.

(Para 40-48)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 309 – Examination of witnesses – Adjournment by Trial courts – Held,

(i)    The trial courts must carry out the mandate of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. as reiterated in judgments of this Court, inter alia, in State of U.P. versus Shambhu Nath Singh and Others (2001) 4 SCC 667], Mohd. Khalid versus State of W.B. (2002)7 SCC 334] and Vinod Kumar versus State of Punjab (2015)3 SCC 220].

(ii)   The eye-witnesses must be examined by the prosecution as soon as possible.

(iii)  Statements of eye-witnesses should invariably be recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. as per procedure prescribed thereunder.

The High Courts may issue appropriate directions to the trial courts for compliance of the above.

(Para 13,14)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 482 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1)(x) -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, Rule 7 -- Supplementary charge-sheet – Direction of Commission for adding charge under SC/ST Act – Power of -- No external agency can dictate the course of investigation in a criminal case -- It is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the police -- Court also cannot supervise the investigation -- However, in exceptional situations, Superior Courts may monitor an investigation -- But that is not the same as supervision -- Supplementary Report filed by the Police, at the direction of the Commission, is quashed.

(Para 7-9)

B. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1)(x) -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, Rule 7 – Direction of Commission for adding charge under SC/ST Act – Power of -- Commission is empowered to conduct an inquiry to “whether proper charge sheet has been filed mentioning the relevant sections of IPC together with the PCR Act, 1955 and SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 in Court” -- This is not a power to dictate the course of the investigation -- Commission is competent to point out any lapses or laches in the investigation -- Commission could only have brought to notice of the Police the need for a proper or further investigation and it was for the Police to take a call.

(Para 8)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 482 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1)(x) -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, Rule 7 -- Partly quashing of charge – Power of High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- There is no prohibition under law for quashing a charge-sheet in part -- U/s 482, all that the High Court is required to examine is whether its intervention is required for implementing orders under the CrPC or for prevention of abuse of process, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice – A charge-sheet filed at the dictate of somebody other than the police would amount abuse of the process of law and hence the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent powers u/s 482 to the extent of the abuse -- No requirement that the charge-sheet has to be quashed as a whole and not in part.

(Para 7-9)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 45 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (2 of 1973), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 -- Offence under money-laundering -- Conditions imposed for grant of bail – Sustainability of -- Section 45 of the 2002 Act struck down as a whole – Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, insofar as it imposes two further conditions for release on bail, to be unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India -- All the matters pending before Supreme court, in which bail has been denied, because of the presence of the twin conditions contained in Section 45, will now go back to the respective Courts which denied bail -- All such orders are set aside, and the cases remanded to the respective Courts to be heard on merits, without application of the twin conditions contained in Section 45 of the 2002 Act.

(Para 20-45)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143 -- Cheque bounce case – Sentence for simple imprisonment of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.11,50,000/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for six months -- Parties amicably settled their dispute -- Parties to abide by the terms and conditions as contained in the Memorandum of Settlement without fail -- Impugned order passed by the High Court set aside and sentence imposed upon the appellant quashed.

(Para 2-6)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR-- Non-appearance of the petitioner before Ld. Trial Court is justified for the reason that he was not served at the given address -- After passing of the order, the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail -- Matter compromised, complainant has withdrawn the complaint u/s 138 of the NIA Act -- Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC would amount to abuse of process of law – Order declaring proclaimed person and subsequent FIR quashed.

 (Para 1, 7,8)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 258 – Cheque bounce complaint – Summary trial – Discharge of accused – Compounding of offence -- Court can close the proceedings and discharge the accused on satisfaction that the cheque amount with assessed costs and interest is paid and if there is no reason to proceed with the punitive aspect –Though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, the Court, in the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused -- Court is entitled to close the proceedings in exercise of its powers u/s 143 of the Act read with Section 258 Cr.P.C.

(Para 11, 18 (i)-(iii), 19)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Chapter XVII, Section 138 – Cheque bounce complaint – Summary trial -- Online hearing of case – Online appearance of accused – Exemption of accused from personal appearance -- Service of summons can be by post/ e-mail/ courier -- Summons ought to indicate that the accused could make specified payment by deposit in a particular account before the specified date and inform the court and the complainant by e-mail -- If the accused complies with such summons and informs the Court and the complainant by e-mail, the Court can ascertain the objection, if any, of the complainant and close the proceedings unless it becomes necessary to proceed with the case -- Some cases of Section 138 cases can be decided online -- If complaint with affidavits and documents can be filed online, process issued online and accused pays the specified amount online, it may obviate the need for personal appearance of the complainant or the accused -- Only if the accused contests, need for appearance of parties may arise which may be through counsel and wherever viable, video conferencing can be used -- Personal appearances can be dispensed with.

(Para 16, 17, 20)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357(3), 431 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 64 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Summary trial -- Discretion of the Magistrate to hold that it was undesirable to try the case summarily as sentence of more than one year may have to be passed -- Court has jurisdiction u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. to award suitable compensation with default sentence under Section 64 IPC and with further powers of recovery under Section 431 Cr.P.C -- With this approach, prison sentence of more than one year may not be required in all cases.

(Para 12, 18(iv))

D. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Chapter XVII, Section 138, 143 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 264, 357(3) – Cheque bounce complaint – Summary trial – Procedure for summoning -- Evidence of the complaint can be given on affidavit -- Bank’s slip being prima facie evidence of the dishonor of cheque, it is unnecessary for the Magistrate to record any further preliminary evidence -- Such affidavit evidence can be read as evidence at all stages of trial or other proceedings – Normal rule for trial of cases under Chapter XVII of the Act is to follow the summary procedure except where exercise of power under second proviso to Section 143 becomes necessary.

(Para 18(iv), (v), 19)

E. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Chapter XVII, Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Chapter XXIA -- Cheque bounce complaint – Plea bargaining -- Speedy trial -- It will be open to the Court to consider the provisions of plea bargaining -- Trial can be on day to day basis and endeavour must be to conclude it within six months.

(Para 20)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Interim maintenance to wife/minor son -- Respondent /wife claims that the petitioner is serving in private company and has been earning Rs.25,000/- per month -- Amount of Rs.7,000/- per month by no stretch of imagination can be said to be on higher side for maintenance of the wife and minor son especially in the present scenario of high rise in the cost of living.

(Para 5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR-- Petitioner could not appear before the trial Court as he was stated to have not been served at the address, where he was residing -- After the passing of the impugned order declaring him as a proclaimed person, he had surrendered before the trial Court and was ordered to be released on bail -- In such circumstances, especially, when the petitioner has duly surrendered before the trial Court, continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be an abuse of the process of Court.

(Para 5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357, 389, 401 -- Cheque bounce case – Appeal against conviction – Suspension of sentence -- Accused was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 1 year and compensation for amount of cheques in question – Accused preferred an appeal -- Suspension of sentence given, with a direction to accused-appellant to deposit 1/3rd of the compensation amount – Accused is aggrieved by such condition – Held, no merit in the revision petition, rather the same is not maintainable -- Appellate Court is justified in imposing any term or condition while suspending the sentence of the accused-appellant, rather the Appellate Court showed indulgence to the accused appellant by asking him to deposit 1/3rd of the compensation only, instead of the complete one -- No illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, which might have called for interference.

(Para 1-4)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 498-A, 304-B – Dowry death -- Additional accused – Summoning of – In statement recorded during trial there is no specific allegations against the respondents with regard to demand of dowry or harassment to the deceased in connection thereof – Conversation with regard to alleged demand and beating by in-laws family members of the deceased was made between the deceased and her mother – Statement of the brother, in this regard, is mere hearsay – Mother of the deceased has not been examined – Beatings by all the five family members of her in-laws do not find corroboration from the post mortem report – Testimony of the brother is not at all sufficient to satisfy the test of more than a prima facie case for summoning the additional accused.

 (Para 7-14)

B. Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (Act No. 28 of 1961), Section 2 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 498-A, 304-B -- Dowry – Dowry death case -- Demands relating to birth of child -- Any demand made in connection with birth of the child does not fall within the definition of dowry u/s 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(Para 12)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 391 – Cheque bounce case -- Additional evidence at appellate stage -- In application pleading that he was not well-conversant with the technicalities of law and even his earlier counsel also did not give him proper advice and as such due to the negligence of his previous counsel, he could not produce the certified copies of the complaints as well as copy of the FIR – Held, respondent cannot be permitted to take the said pleas.

(Para 11)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 391 -- Cheque bounce case --Additional evidence at appellate stage -- Evidence sought to be produced by way of additional evidence regarding filing of similar complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the complainant against some other persons was well within the knowledge of the respondent, but he did not make any effort to lead any evidence to that effect before the trial Court itself at the time of his defence evidence – Application should not have been allowed by the Ld. Appellate court.

(Para 13, 15)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 391 – Cheque bounce case -- Additional evidence -- Bearing on the case -- Production of copies of complaints, judgments and the FIR so to be lodged by the respondent by way of additional evidence has no material bearing on the facts of the case inasmuch as each case has to be decided on its own merits -- Judgments of other cases may not influence while deciding a particular case and cannot be a guiding factor as each case has its own peculiar facts.

(Para 17)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Written statement – Right of – Defence struck off -- Court has proceeded with the case in a hurry without appreciating and realizing consequence of rendering the petitioner handicap in making his written submissions to contest claim of the respondent-wife -- No doubt, provisions under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were enacted with an intent to provide immediate succor to destitute wife, neglected children and parents etc., equally true is that the proceedings are summary in nature but at the same time, without finding any fault on the part of a litigant, his rights to submit his pleadings before the Court cannot be scuttled -- A serious prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioner in case he is not permitted to file his written statement and give his side of the story to contest claim of the respondent-wife -- Order passed by the Court below striking off defence of the petitioner cannot be allowed to sustain and liable to be set aside.

(Para 4)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 -- Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.c. -- Degree of satisfaction required under Section 319 Cr.P.C., is much more higher than the prima facie satisfaction at the time of summoning -- Test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as required at the time of framing of charge and just short of final conclusion.

(Para 13,14)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 -- Depositions made by the complainant during course of investigation was not found sufficient to even frame charge against the petitioner -- With the improved statements that too on the basis of disclosure made by the mother soon before her death would not be sufficient to presume existence of more than prima facie case for summoning the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. -- Degree of satisfaction required for summoning at this stage has to be based upon material to be sufficient to create reasonable prospects of conviction of the petitioner.

(Para 15)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 --  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 482 – Cheque bounce case – Vicarious liability – Quashing of complaint -- Contention that the cheque in question not issued and signed by petitioner  – Fact of complaint are that he was director and authorized signatory and the firm issued cheque in question and upon presentation it was dishonoured with the remarks “Insufficient Funds” – Held, the petitioner has been summoned in view of Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act which imposes vicarious liability upon every person who at the time of offence was in charge of conducting the business of the company – No ground to quash the impugned complaint or to interfere with the well reasoned order of summoning.

(Para 2,8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Cheque bounce case – Cross-examination of complainant – Re-calling the witness – Petitioner- company seeks to recall the complainant on one date to cross examine, whether the amount in discharge of which the cheques in question in favour of the respondent has been issued finds reflection in his accounts/income tax returns – Held, examination of the complainant on the afore issue would have a bearing on the adjudication of the dispute between the parties -- Application under Section 311 Cr. P.C to recall allowed.

(Para 7)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act – Quashing of -- Loan agreement nowhere shows that cheques in question have been taken by the respondent as security cheques -- Whether the respondent has taken blank signed cheques as security or post-dated cheques for payment of loan installments in case of default as security is to be decided by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence produced before it -- Finding of fact cannot be given at this stage by High Court without any evidence – No ground is made out for quashing the complaints.

(Para 5, 7)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Arbitration clause -- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act – Quashing of -- Contention that there is arbitration clause in the agreement, therefore, complaints are not maintainable – Held, this argument has no force -- When the cheques have been dishonoured and returned back unpaid by the Bank and legal notices have been sent, then non-payment of the amount within prescribed period gave cause of action to file the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(Para 6, 7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Cheque bounce case -- Application for additional witness -- Complaint was filed by Prop. of Firm through G.P.A. -- During the pendency of the proceedings, an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was filed to the effect that proprietor of firm was inadvertently not examined during the evidence of complainant – Held, filing of application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. is nothing but has been filed to fill up the lacuna in this case -- If application is allowed and the complainant is allowed to fill up the lacuna, then it will cause prejudice to the case of the accused – Application rightly dismissed.

(Para 6-9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 --  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357(3), 421(1), 431 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 70 – Cheque bounce case – Compensation not paid – Default sentence undergone -- Whether the compensation still recoverable -- High Court held that despite the fact that the default sentence was undergone, yet, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, compensation was recoverable – Held, object of the legal fiction created by Section 431 is to extend for the purpose of recovery of compensation until such recovery is completed and this would necessarily take not only to Section 421 of the Cr.P.C. but also to Section 70 of the Penal Code – Judgment of High Court, upheld.

(Para 4, 29)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 397, 401 – Right to Appeal – Right to Revision -- Right of appeal or revision is creation of a Statute and, therefore, if the Statute does not confer any right, a person cannot avail of such a remedy, which is not specifically provided for under the Statute -- As the law stands the right to appeal against inadequacy of the sentence has been given only to the State Government and the complainant or a third person has no such right.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 397, 401 – Appeal/ Revision for enhancement of sentence – Right of -- As per Section 372 Cr. P.C. Proviso thereto, right of appeal has been provided to a victim in particular specified circumstances only -- A victim of crime can, under the following circumstances, prefer an appeal against (i) an order of acquittal of the accused; (ii) convicting the accused of a lesser offence; and (iii) imposing inadequate compensation – It is thus apparent that no appeal lies for enhancement of sentence -- There is no restriction or bar on a victim to approach the Courts conferred with revisional powers for invoking and exercising their revisional jurisdiction even for enhancement of sentence.

(Para 10-13)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 – Revision – Right of -- Section 401 (4) of the Code, remedy of revision is limited to the situation where remedy of appeal is not available to party -- This would not mean that any person can maintain a revision who cannot file appeal -- Power of invoking revisional jurisdiction by a party has to be seen in the context of the intention behind the amendment made in the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, has to be viewed in the context of remedy of appeal – Appeal has been restricted to the 'victim(s)' only -- Therefore, it can safely be said that the revision can be maintained by a victim alone, irrespective of the fact whether he is a complainant or not and none else.

(Para 13)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(wa), 397, 401 -- Complainant – Victim – Revision for enhancement of sentence – Maintainability of -- Complainant was neither present on the spot nor has he suffered any loss or injury, thus, not a victim -- Revision would not be maintainable as the complainant herein is not a victim as defined under Section 2 (wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure -- If that be so, the revision preferred by the complainant could not have been entertained by the Additional Sessions Judge.

(Para 16)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 319 -- Additional accused – Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. – Evidence collected by I.O. during investigation – Consideration of -- Trial court would be competent to exercise its power on the basis of examination-in-chief -- However, in a case, where plethora of evidence was collected by the I.O. during investigation which suggested otherwise, the trial court was at least duty bound to look into the same while forming prima facie opinion and to see as to whether ‘much stronger evidence than mere possibility of complicity has come on record -- There is no satisfaction of this nature – High Court too blissfully ignored the said material -- Except reproducing the discussion contained in the order of the trial court and expressing agreement therewith, nothing more has been done -- Such orders cannot stand judicial scrutiny -- Order of summoning the appellants under Section 319 Cr.P.C., set aside.

(Para 15,16)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 155, 207 -- First Information Report – Right of accused – Uploading on police website – Directions issued:

(a)     An accused is entitled to get a copy of the First Information Report at an earlier stage than as prescribed under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.

(b)     An accused who has reasons to suspect that he has been roped in a criminal case and his name may be finding place in a First Information Report can submit an application through his representative/agent/parokar for grant of a certified copy before the concerned police officer or to the Superintendent of Police on payment of such fee which is payable for obtaining such a copy from the Court. On such application being made, the copy shall be supplied within twenty-four hours.

(c)     Once the First Information Report is forwarded by the police station to the concerned Magistrate or any Special Judge, on an application being filed for certified copy on behalf of the accused, the same shall be given by the Court concerned within two working days. The aforesaid direction has nothing to do with the statutory mandate inhered under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.

(d)     The copies of the FIRs, unless the offence is sensitive in nature, like sexual offences, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that category, offences under POCSO Act and such other offences, should be uploaded on the police website, and if there is no such website, on the official website of the State Government, within twenty-four hours of the registration of the First Information Report so that the accused or any person connected with the same can download the FIR and file appropriate application before the Court as per law for redressal of his grievances. It may be clarified here that in case there is connectivity problems due to geographical location or there is some other unavoidable difficulty, the time can be extended up to forty-eight hours. The said 48 hours can be extended maximum up to 72 hours and it is only relatable to connectivity problems due to geographical location.

(e)     The decision not to upload the copy of the FIR on the website shall not be taken by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or any person holding equivalent post. In case, the States where District Magistrate has a role, he may also assume the said authority. A decision taken by the concerned police officer or the District Magistrate shall be duly communicated to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.

(f)      The word 'sensitive' apart from the other aspects which may be thought of being sensitive by the competent authority as stated hereinbefore would also include concept of privacy regard being had to the nature of the FIR. The examples given with regard to the sensitive cases are absolutely illustrative and are not exhaustive.

(g)     If an FIR is not uploaded, needless to say, it shall not enure per se a ground to obtain the benefit under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

(h)     In case a copy of the FIR is not provided on the ground of sensitive nature of the case, a person grieved by the said action, after disclosing his identity, can submit a representation to the Superintendent of Police or any person holding the equivalent post in the State. The Superintendent of Police shall constitute a committee of three officers which shall deal with the said grievance. As far as the Metropolitan cities are concerned, where Commissioner is there, if a representation is submitted to the Commissioner of Police who shall constitute a committee of three officers. The committee so constituted shall deal with the grievance within three days from the date of receipt of the representation and communicate it to the grieved person.

(i)      The competent authority referred to hereinabove shall constitute the committee, as directed herein-above, within eight weeks from today.

(j)      In cases wherein decisions have been taken not to give copies of the FIR regard being had to the sensitive nature of the case, it will be open to the accused/his authorized representative/parokar to file an application for grant of certified copy before the Court to which the FIR has been sent and the same shall be provided in quite promptitude by the concerned Court not beyond three days of the submission of the application.

(k)     The directions for uploading of FIR in the website of all the States shall be given effect from 15^th November, 2016.

(Para 12)