Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Section 21 (1) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Mining case – Anticipatory bail -- On the contention that petitioner has already obtained all requisite permissions including the registration certificate from the competent authority, no mining material has been recovered at the spot, involved in the case on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, FIR indicates that no offence under Section 379 of IPC and Act, 1957 is a special statute that provides a complete mechanism for dealing with any violation of the Act and Section 379 of the IPC was added in the FIR only to make the offence non-bailable, which is in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner was admitted to interim bail -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and is no more required for custodial interrogation – Interim order made absolute.

(Para 1-4)

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (14 of 1981), Section 33A, 49  -- Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974), Section 33A, 43 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 --  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(d), 4(2), 482 -- Quashing of FIR -- Offence for Water and Air pollution and Section 188 of IPC – Criminal complaint – Section 33A of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the provisions of Indian Penal Code are expressly excluded -- Statutory scheme under Act, 1974 and Act, 1981 provides that the prosecution under them can only be launched by way of a complaint case an FIR cannot be registered under the provisions of the same – Held, impugned FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are void ab initio and are liable to be quashed -- FIR quashed.

(Para 6-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 307 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Murder – Anticipatory bail -- No documentary evidence or allegations leveled in the FIR that the petitioner at the time of alleged occurrence had instigated the main accused, or even provided the weapon of offence -- Only his presence at the time of alleged occurrence had been shown and that too, in the supplementary statement after two days of the alleged occurrence – Anticipatory bail allowed.

(Para 1, 6, 7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 482 – Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Enhancement of compensation u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- Jurisdiction of High Court -- Revision against conviction -- Complainant filed an application u/s 482 of the Code primarily seeking enhancement of compensation – No jurisdictional error on the part of the High Court in passing the order after entertaining the application u/s 482 of the Code.

(Para 2, 3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder of husband – Regular bail -- Petitioner was arrested on 01.04.2021 and is in custody since then -- Out of 13, 4 witnesses, who are private and vital witnesses, have been examined -- Taking into consideration the period already spent by the petitioner in custody, coupled with the fact that she is required to take care of her three minor children, however, without expressing any views on the merits of the case, bail granted.

(Para 4, 5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Amendment in title of complaint – Trial court allowed amendment of title of the complaint by replacing (Firm name) as the complainant with only (Name of Director) – Held, amendment is merely formal in nature and does not impact the heart of the case -- Moreover, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the amendment allowed in the case title and he can still raise all pleas available to him.

(Para 4, 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 243 – Prosecution witness in defence -- Whether a witness which has been shown in the prosecution list but not examined on behalf of the prosecution, can be permitted to be examined as a defence witness – Held, there is no bar in the law for examining the said witness as defence witness – Appellant permitted to examine the prosecution witness as defence witness.

(Para 2-4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- Fixed sentence – Appeal against conviction – Suspension of sentence -- Out five years, the appellant has undergone half of the sentence – Appeal not likely to reach before he completes the entire sentence, a case is made out for grant of suspension of sentence – When there is a fixed term sentence and especially when the appeal is not likely to be heard before completing entire period of sentence, normally suspension of sentence and bail should be granted.

(Para 1-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173(8), 190 – Further investigation – Protest petition -- Second respondent was not put up for trial for offences u/s 376, 417 and 420 of IPC – Appellant, instead of moving protest petition, moved an application captioned as “under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.” -- Averments made in that application reveal that the appellant protested against deletion of charges u/s 376, 417 and 420 of IPC and she made an endeavour to bring on record the material which would prima facie establish the commission of these offences – Magistrate can treat it as Protest Petition and then decide the same on merits -- A technicality like the caption of the application/petition could not be an impediment.

(Para 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Cheating – Protracted trial – Sentence reduced to already undergone -- Criminal complaint filed in the year 1998, the petitioner is facing agony of a protracted trial, which has lasted for approximately 25 years -- Out of the total sentence of 3 years u/s 420 IPC, the petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 6 months and 7 days -- In the interest of justice sentence reduced to the period already undergone by petitioner -- Fine increased to Rs.10,000/- in default of fine rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(Para 13, 14)

A. Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (6 of 1918), Section 41 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Regular Second Appeal – Interference in finding on facts – Sub-clause No.(c) of Section 41 (1) of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, enables the High Court for the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, to reappreciate the evidence, if the decision is suffering from substantial error or defect resulting in defect in the decision of the case -- Consequently, it is permissible for the Court while deciding second appeal to re-appreciate the evidence if the decisions of the Courts suffer from perversity --  However, it is not permissible to interfere if two views are possible -- Interference in the second appeal has to be restricted to rare and exceptional cases where the court finds that the findings of fact stand vitiated by erroneous approach based on miss application of evidence or reliance on inadmissible evidence.

(Para 14, 15)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45, 73 – Agreement to sell – Handwriting expert -- It is well settled that invariably the Handwriting and Finger Print Expert gives a favourable opinion to the person who has engaged him – U/s 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Presiding Judge is not debarred from carefully comparing the signatures and finger prints on various documents -- Adverse inference could not be drawn against the defendants for failure to examine Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert.

(Para 27(17))

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32, 33 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C was neither relevant nor admissible in evidence as the plaintiff failed to fulfill the requirements of Section 32 and 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

(Para 27(18))

D. Agreement to sell -- Examination of the regular scribe was important.

(Para 27(21))

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 504, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190, 200, 482 -- Criminal  breach of trust – Criminal intimidation – Quashing of complaint/ summoning order -- Commercial disputes over variation of rate cannot per se give rise to an offence u/s 405 of the 1860 Code without presence of any aggravating factor leading to the substantiation of its ingredients -- Dispute pertains to the revision of rate per unit in an ongoing commercial transaction -- A commercial dispute, which ought to have been resolved through the forum of Civil Court has been given criminal colour by lifting from the penal code certain words or phrases and implanting them in a criminal complaint – There is only reproduction of part of the statutory provision giving rise to the offence of criminal intimidation, this would constitute a mere bald allegation -- Criminal complaint and summoning order quashed.

(Para 19-21)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190, 200 -- At the stage of issuing summons a magistrate only needs to be satisfied with a prima facie case for taking cognizance, the duty of the magistrate is also to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding.

(Para 18)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375, 376 – Rape – False promise to marry -- If the consent of the victim is based on misconception, such consent is immaterial as it is not a voluntary consent -- If it is established that from the inception, the consent by the victim is a result of a false promise to marry, there will be no consent, and in such a case, the offence of rape will be made out.

(Para 7)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(2), 377, 504, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape – False promise to marry – Quashing of charge-sheet -- Physical relationship started in 2012, though prosecutrix claimed that it was a forced relationship, she did not make any grievance about it till February 2018 -- In February 2013 and in December 2017, the prosecutrix was pregnant -- It is not the case of the prosecutrix that from February 2013 to December 2017, the appellant forced the second respondent to maintain the physical relationship -- In July 2017, there was an engagement ceremony between the appellant and the prosecutrix – Taking the prosecution case as correct, it is not possible to accept that the prosecutrix maintained a physical relationship only because the appellant had given a promise of marriage – Charge-sheet and further proceedings quashed.

(Para 9-15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 500 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 202 -- Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a) – Criminal defamation – News article – Freedom of speech -- News article published bearing a title “Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj” -- News article in question was published in good faith and in exercise of the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India – All proceedings in pursuance of the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant u/s 500 of the IPC quashed.

(Para 2, 8-11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused -- Petitioner never raised any grievance by filing a complaint to the senior police officers -- Improvements made while deposing before the learned trial Court cannot form the basis for exercising the extraordinary power u/s 319 Cr.P.C -- Mere statement of the complainant, which is not substantiated by any credible material, cannot be a ground to invoke the discretionary and extraordinary power of the  Court to summon an additional accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C.

(Para 3)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused -- In the absence of any material suggesting existence of more than prima facie case available during the course of trial of an offence, courts ought to refrain themselves from exercising its discretionary and extraordinary power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

(Para 3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34, 362, 201, 392, 411, 414 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody since 8.10.2018 but only 02 of the 33 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far -- Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for a right to speedy Trial which prima facie seems to have been violated in the instant case -- Further incarceration of the petitioner is not required – Bail allowed.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420,406, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail -- Cheating – Criminal breach of trust -- Breach of agreement to sell -- Every breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless the fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction -- Allegations of failure to keep a promise will not be enough to initiate the criminal proceedings -- Agreement to sell in favour of the complainant, however, sale deed in favour of other -- Complainant, instead of initiating the civil proceedings, had got the FIR registered -- Both the petitioners were the attesting witnesses to the agreement and had joined the investigation -- Documents had already been collected by the police and their custodial interrogation is not required -- Interim orders made absolute.

(Para 1, 7, 8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- Trial Court is empowered to impose conditions u/s 451 of the IPC, however, these conditions must not be excessively burdensome to the extent of practically negating the relief sought by an individual, as in the instant case.

(Para 8)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379 -- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Section 21(1), 4(A) --  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- Superdari of vehicle -- Onerous condition of 25% cash deposit imposed by the trial Court upon the petitioner set aside -- Vehicle ordered to be released on supurdari to the petitioner on his furnishing supurdginama (bond) of Rs.5 lacs to the satisfaction of the trial Court/ Duty Magistrate.

(Para 8-10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200 – Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing/ deletion of name of Director -- Complaint shows that the 2nd and the 5th accused had signed the cheque -- 2nd accused was one of the Directors and fifth accused was the authorized signatory of the company -- No allegation in the complaint that petitioner signed the cheque or had anything to do with the issuance of the cheque -- Petitioner is roped in only because she is a Director in the company on whose behalf, the cheque was issued -- Held, arraying of the petitioner as the 4th accused was un-justified -- Accordingly, her deletion from the proceedings ordered.

(Para 2-7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Two similar cheque bounce complaints – Two quashing petitions – In one case notice with protective order in favour of accused issued by High Court – Other Bench dismissed the other petition as devoid of merit – Order set aside, the matters are remitted back to the High Court for analogous consideration.

(Para 4-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 148, 149, 201 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner behind the bars since 02.11.2022 – Final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. submitted on 11.01.2023 -- Out of 29 witnesses cited by the prosecution, none has been examined so far –  Culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of the trial – Keeping the petitioner in further detention, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Bail allowed.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 342, 379-B, 384, 506, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Snatching case – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody since 21.07.2023 -- None of the 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far -- Trial is not likely to be concluded anytime soon -- Compromise arrived between the parties – Bail allowed.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 326, 506, 201, 120-B -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail -- 13 out of 24 witnesses cited by the prosecution have already been examined and trial may come to an end early -- Material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case -- It will not be proper to keep the appellants detained, once it has come in the testimony of the material witnesses that appellants are not the assailants – Bail allowed.

(Para 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 379, 447, 425, 427, 506, 511, 120-B, 148, 149 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Harvesting of crops with armed weapons -- Allegations that petitioners along with various other co-accused entered the fields of the complainant and harvested the crop while armed with weapons – Dispute is civil in nature regarding possession of the land in question -- Petition allowed.

(Para 2-5)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Murder – Acquittal -- Dying declaration -- There is no specific material piece of evidence to establish that the deceased was alive or in a position to speak when his brother & mother reached the spot -- Dying declaration cannot be ex facie accepted to be correct unless it stands corroborated by any other cogent evidence -- No material to corroborate the said dying declaration -- Conviction and sentence of the appellants set aside by granting the benefit of doubt – Appellants acquitted.

(Para 16-18)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Appeal against conviction – Acquittal -- Where the evidence on record indicates the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that a plausible view, different from the one expressed by the courts below can be taken, the appellate court should not shy away in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused persons.

(Para 17)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 202, 203, 204 -- Complaint at pre-summoning stage – Dismiss in default -- Statutory scheme provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure does not require the petitioner to appear on each and every date at pre summoning stage and his absence, therefore, cannot be a ground for dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution -- Before issuance of process u/s 204 of Cr.P.C. the complaint cannot be dismissed in default for non-prosecution due to the non-appearance of the complainant.

(Para 4)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Circumstantial evidence -- Normal approach in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established.

(Para 9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161 – Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C – Involvement of accused during deposition -- If the PWs had failed to mention in their statements u/s 161 CrPC about the involvement of an accused, their subsequent statement before court during trial regarding involvement of that particular accused cannot be relied upon.

(Para 26)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161 – Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C – Improved fact during deposition -- Prosecution cannot seek to prove a fact during trial through a witness which such witness had not stated to police during investigation -- The evidence of that witness regarding the said improved fact is of no significance.

(Para 26)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 136 -- Illiterate witness – Appreciation of evidence led by such a witness has to be treated differently from other kinds of witnesses -- It cannot be subjected to a hyper-technical inquiry and much emphasis ought not to be given to imprecise details that may have been brought out in the evidence -- If there were minor contradictions and inconsistencies, that could have been ignored since the recollection of exact details as to location and time can be attributed to the lack of literacy.

(Para 27, 28)

E. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Circumstantial evidence -- PW-5, a chance witness was in his village, answering the call of nature at 6 am, at which point he claimed to have seen the accused persons going in a jeep -- The side-on view would have been only for a couple of seconds at best, since they were travelling in a jeep – It is not safe to rely on this testimony solely to prove that the appellant was escaping after having murdered his wife.

(Para 29)

F. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 -- Murder – Circumstantial evidence -- Explanation u/s 313 Cr.P.C. -- Main principle to be satisfied in a case of conviction based on circumstantial evidence is that the proved circumstances must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence – There was alive a strong hypothesis that the deceased had committed suicide, which explanation was led by the appellant in his statement u/s 313 CrPC, and it is sufficient to create a doubt.

(Para 30)

G. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 – Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – Evidential value -- Statement of an accused under Section 313 CrPC is no ‘evidence’ because, firstly, it is not on oath and, secondly, the other party i.e. the prosecution does not get an opportunity to cross examine the accused – It cannot form the sole basis of conviction.

(Para 32, 33)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce complaint -- A complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act requires to contain  such factual averments as are necessary to satisfy the ingredients of the said provision, namely, that the cheque/money bill which has been dishonoured was issued to discharge full or partial pre-existing debt liability -- It is not be the pre-requisite of Section 138 of the N.I. Act to plead evidence in the complaint itself -- Once a specific plea has been taken, it can be later on substantiated by adducing evidence at an appropriate stage.

(Para 7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Settlement between parties – Quashing of proceedings – No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, maybe for the reason that there has been a settlement -- Matter is pending since 2018 – Held, once the settlement has been arrived at and the complainant has signed the deed accepting a particular amount in full and final settlement of the default amount and the fine amount awarded by the Trial Court, the proceedings u/s 138 of the NI Act need to be quashed -- Appeal allowed and the proceedings u/s 138 of the NI Act, along with impugned orders passed, stand quashed.

(Para 1-5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 401 – Conviction in cheque bounce case – Settlement amount not paid – Cancellation of bail/ suspension of sentence – High Court took a firm stance against the appellant’s continued failure to fulfil his financial obligations, culminating in the cancellation of his bail and suspension of sentence – No infirmity in the impugned order -- Complainant has been litigating since 2007 almost 16 years -- Appeal dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5 lakhs to be paid to the Complainant.

(Para 2, 16-19)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Appeal dismissed   -- Matter was thereafter settled between the parties -- High Court rejected the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- Held, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and since the original complainant himself is not interested in prosecuting the proceedings, it is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to give an end to the litigation between the parties -- Order of sentence and conviction set aside.

(Para 3-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985),  Section 20 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- NDPS Case – Appeal against acquittal – Discrepancies in sample -- Investigating Officer had taken a homogeneous sample of 100 grams out of the entire bulk -- Two separate parcels of the sample and remaining bulk were prepared and sealed -- Parcel containing of 100 grams Charas (homogeneous sample) was never sent to SFSL, report Ext. PX verifies the fact that only one parcel containing 7.900 Kgs. of Charas was received in the Laboratory – Three seal impressions were broken and the fourth though partially broken was also not legible -- Doubts created in the prosecution story by the gaps found therein -- In appeal against acquittal the appellate court cannot substitute its view with the view taken by learned trial court unless such view is illegal and perverse -- No ground to interfere with the impugned judgment – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 16-25)

Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, Section 306, 498A – Abetment of suicide – Cruelty against wife – Appeal against acquittal -- SHO without conducting proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C registered the FIR – Statement of the mother of the deceased was recorded u/s 164-A Cr.P.C. after 55 days of the occurrence, whereas the statements of other witnesses were recorded after more than 10 days of the occurrence -- From the evidence, it is clear that some witnesses have made improvements in their statements from their statements recorded during the course of investigation -- Some witnesses have categorically stated that the accused never demanded any dowry in their presence -- Benefit is required to be given to the accused/respondents – In the acquittal appeal, simply because the other view is also possible on the same set of evidence, the judgment of acquittal cannot be reversed -- Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 17-23)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 5 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 244, 245 – Discharge of accused -- Omnibus and general allegations against married sisters-in-law residing at distant places married prior to the marriage in question -- Complainant has stated in her evidence that her sisters-in-law are greedy people and used to visit her matrimonial home and gave her beating, and all the accused persons got her pregnancy aborted, but there is no medical evidence in support of this version -- Court below, while dismissing the discharge application has failed to notice the role of the revisionists and the probability of their false implication -- They are not supposed to be beneficiary of any demand of dowry made by co-accused persons – Revision partly allowed, ld. Magistrate directed to consider the prayer for discharge made by present revisionists a fresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam’s case AIR 2022 SC 820 relied.

(Para 11-21)

Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Section 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 -- Insecticides Rules, 1971, Rule 27(5) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Complaint against petitioner/ M.D. of Marketing firm -- Sealed packet of sample was drawn from the dealer for the purpose of analysis as manufactured – Dealer and manufacturers have already been acquitted – Held, it would be a futile exercise to continue the proceedings against the petitioner -- Complaint qua the petitioner quashed.

(Para 5-8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Deposit of compensation of 20% amount – Exception to -- Suspension of sentence – Ld. Additional Sessions Judge directed to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation and further cancel the order of suspension of sentence of the petitioner for non-compliance of the said order – Held, Lower Appellate Court was required to consider whether the present case falls in the exception or not – Ld. lower Appellate Court directed to re-examine the case after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions regarding the exceptional circumstances and decide whether it is an appropriate case that warrants waiver of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the compensation awarded by learned trial Court – Matter remanded back.

(Para 1-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 – Appeal – Dismiss in default -- Appellate Court cannot dismiss the appeal merely because of non-representation or on default of counsel for an accused -- Court ought to have decided the case on merits by appointing the amicus curiae -- Appellate Court proceeded to dismiss the statutory appeal for non-prosecution -- Order is required to be set aside – Case remanded back to the first appellate Court concerned, to decide it on merits. K. Muruganandam’s case 2021 (3) RCR (Crl.) 859 relied.

(Para 7-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 377 – Appeal against sentence – Scope of -- Acquittal from serious offence – Conviction in lesser offence -- When a person is charged with a graver offence but is convicted of the lesser offences, the same amounts to the acquittal of the serious offence and it is not permissible for the High Court to convert the lesser offence into serious offence in an appeal for enhancement of sentence --  High Court can only enhance the sentence provided for the lesser offence of which the person was found guilty.

(Para 11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 173, 401(2) – FIR case -- Revision against charge – Opportunity of hearing to complainant -- Accused in revision petition not made the petitioner/ complainant as party -- Further, the revisional Court also did not issue notice to the petitioner/ complainant -- Order framing charges was quashed and the matter was remanded back for fresh examination – Held, the said order is certainly to the prejudice of the petitioner/ complainant, he was certainly required to be heard before any order was passed by the Revisional Court -- Petition allowed, the impugned order quashed – Revisional Court to proceed the matter in accordance with law.

(Para 12, 13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34, 109, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12, 101(5) – Murder -- Juvenile in conflict with law – Regular bail -- Except the personal opinion expressed by the Children’s Court, there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner would face wrath and outrage from the members of the society in case he is granted the concession of bail – Petitioner is in custody since 14.07.2022 and none of the 37 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, therefore, the trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon -- Further incarceration of the petitioner is not required – Petition allowed.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 34, 341, 365, 379-B, 201, 325, 367 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Snatching case – Regular bail -- Case of version and cross-version, in which both the parties have sustained injuries -- Simply because the complainant party received more injuries comparing to the petitioners, it cannot be adjudicated at this stage as to who was the aggressor, as it will be a matter of trial – Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, petitioners admitted to regular bail.

(Para 6, 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 202 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 324, 326, 452, 504, 506, 34 – Private complaint – Concealment by complainant -- Complaint dismissed without summoning – Revisional court while dismissing revision observed that it appear that the allegations in the complaint do not inspire faith and appear to be manipulated -- Duration of injuries concealed in the translated copies of the MLRs as placed on record, which indicates that petitioner has even tried to mislead the Court -- Process can be refused when the Magistrate finds that evidence led by the complainant is self-contradictory or intrinsically untrustworthy – Petition challenging impugned orders dismissed.

(Para 8-11)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case  -- Demand Notice -- If in a notice while giving the break-up of the claim the cheque amount interest, damages, etc. are separately specified and these additional claims would be severable, such demand would not invalidate the notice -- In a notice of demand made under the N.I. Act demand shall not be omnibus, there must be a clear demand for the cheque amount lest notice will be invalid.

(Para 6)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case  -- Invalid Demand Notice – Quashing of summoning order -- Omnibus demand for Rs.6,50,000/- was made in addition to the demand for interest @12 per annum since the date of returning of the cheque, Rs.50,000/- towards damages and Rs.5,500/- as notice charge -- Demand is omnibus as relates the amount of Rs.6,50,000/-, it is not the cheque amount – Notice of demand is invalid – Summoning order quashed.

(Para 8)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Abetment of suicide -- Two suicide notes -- Suicide notes recovered from the person of the deceased mentions that he had loaned Rs. 3,00,000/- to the respondent-accused seven months ago and since he was demanding his money back, she had been blackmailing him -- Different pens and inks were used in writing the suicide notes -- There is no proximity between the alleged act of the accused-respondent and suicide of the deceased – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 7-16)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Abetment of suicide -- Appeal against acquittal -- Power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of acquittal on the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence is subject to the settled law that where two views are possible and out of the two, one points towards the innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail over the other pointing towards his guilt – No perversity or illegality pointed out – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 14-16)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 384, 506, 420, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Extortion – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 23.08.2023 and none of the 08 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far -- Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon -- Further incarceration is not required, moreso, when a co-accused has been granted the concession of bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 4-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 21 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case – Regular bail -- Petitioner was found in possession of an intermediate quantity of heroin and a small quantity of Charas, hence, rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply -- Petitioner was selling narcotics to various persons -- Statement of any purchaser was not recorded to show that he had purchased the narcotic from the petitioner -- Version that the petitioner is a Drug Peddler is not acceptable -- Petitioner in custody since 19.10.2023 -- Result of analysis is awaited, challan is not likely to be filed soon and the trial of the case will take some time -- Petitioner was found involved in NDPS Act for the first time and he deserves a chance to reform himself -- Continued detention of the petitioner in custody will make the chance of reformation bleak as he will come in contact with the hardened criminals – Bail allowed.

(Para 11-16)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case – Regular bail – Disclosure statement -- Petitioner cannot be detained in custody based on a statement made by the co-accused and the call details as these do not constitute a legally admissible piece of evidence -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 16, 17)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the complaint – Order declaring the petitioner proclaimed person and the order for registration of FIR u/s 174-A IPC quashed.

(Para 9-13)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 144 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Prohibition order u/s 144 Cr.P.C. – Violation of – FIR u/s 188 IPC  -- Peaceful protest -- More than 100 persons had died in the State of Punjab due to illicit and spurious liquor -- Being public representatives, the petitioners were peacefully going to meet the Chief Minister of Punjab to bring his attention to their grievances -- Petitioners had every right to protest democratically, and they did so in peace -- Merely bringing the Chief Minister of Punjab's attention to an important issue through a peaceful protest does not amount to an offence under section 188 IPC.

(Para 11-13)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 144 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Mens rea – Peaceful protest -- It is sufficient that the offender knows of the order they disobey and that such disobedience produced or is likely to produce harm -- State has not gathered any evidence to primafacie establish the essential ingredients and what disobedience the petitioner caused in this regard -- An offence u/s 188 of the IPC is not made out.

(Para 17)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 144, 173, 190, 195 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 – FIR u/s 188 IPC  -- Bar of Section 195 CrPC – Prosecution launched on police report u/s 173 (2) CrPC for the commission of an offence punishable u/s 188 IPC, whereas section 195(1)(a)(i) bars the Court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable u/s 188 of the IPC unless there is written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of their lawful order -- Police report, being not a complaint, could not have been made the basis for taking cognizance of the offence u/s 188 of the IPC, and the concerned Court had no jurisdiction to summon the accused -- Order of dismissal of the application for discharge violates the mandatory provision of section 195(1) of CrPC, 1973 -- Complaint and the police report (Challan) u/s 173 CrPC filed in FIR quashed and set aside.

(Para 18-26)

A. Disaster Management Act, 2005 (53 of 2005), Section 22 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Covid-19 proclamation – Non-wearing of mask -- When the proclamation was in force, the petitioner was noticed on a public street in the morning at 6.30 am, and when the police officials asked him to wear a mask, he did not cooperate and argued with the police -- It is not alleged that the petitioner was in somebody else's company -- Petitioner was walking alone, so even if he was not wearing a mask, he did not commit any offence that would violate Section 188 IPC – FIR quashed.

(Para 9-12)

B. Disaster Management Act, 2005 (53 of 2005), Section 22 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Covid-19 proclamation – Non-wearing of mask -- It is not the complainant’s case that the petitioner in any manner was instrumental in causing any injury, that is, by spreading the Covid 19 -- Further there is no evidence like medical record that he was tested for Covid or had any visible symptoms thereof -- Thus, in the absence of any harm or obstruction caused to anybody, not wearing of mask would not tantamount to violation of Section 188 IPC -- FIR quashed.

(Para 12)