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)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Cruelty to wife -- Anticipatory bail – Non-performing of conjugal rights – Ground of -- High Court dismissed the petition by observing that in view of the adamant attitude of the appellant in not resuming the conjugal life with the opposite party No.2 in the house of the appellant, where the opposite party No.2 was staying, his petition could not be considered – Held, neither such condition should have been imposed by the High Court while granting an anticipatory bail, nor such could be a ground for rejection of the petition filed by the appellant – Order set aside, in case of arrest of the appellant, he ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 193 -- Summoning of additional accused – Evaluation of evidence – Requirement of -- Trial Court summoned the petitioners u/s 193 Cr.P.C. without evaluating the evidence and assessment of the material available against the persons sought to be summoned and then adjudging whether such material, more or less, carry the same weightage and value as has been testified against those who are already facing trial – Impugned order set aside matter remanded back.

(Para 7-9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 193 -- Summoning of additional accused – Power of -- FIR is not an encyclopaedia and mere statement of the complainant reiterating the contents of FIR/ complaint not substantiated by any credible material, cannot be a ground to invoke the power to summon an additional accused under Section 193 Cr.P.C.

(Para 9)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 193 -- Summoning of additional accused – Evaluation of evidence – Requirement of – Trial Court has not gone into the statements of witnesses attached with the final report before passing the impugned order --- Without any reasoning that there was some “evidence”  on the basis of which it can be gathered that they appear to be guilty of the offence and the said evidence can be utilised for corroboration and to support the allegations levelled in the FIR -- Impugned order set aside matter remanded back.

(Para 9)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Preserving of call details and tower location – Right of accused -- Preserving and requisitioning of the call details and tower location details would be necessary, otherwise the same would be lost forever -- Right of accused to invoke the provisions of Section 91 Cr.P.C. for obtaining documents in support of his defence has been recognized by the Constitutional Courts -- Legislative intent behind enactment of Section 91 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that no cogent material or evidence involved in the issue remains undiscovered in unearthing the true facts during investigation, enquiry, trial or other proceedings.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Preserving of call details and tower location – Right of accused -- While passing the appropriate direction for preserving and production of call details/tower location details under Section 91 Cr.P.C. would violate the right to privacy of the police officials but the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in ensuring free and fair investigation/trial would prevail over the right to privacy of the police officials.

(Para 8)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 65A, 65B -- Preserving of call details and tower location – Right of accused -- Denial of an adequate opportunity to the accused by non-production of the electronic record, which is admissible under Section 65-A and 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act in criminal trial, would amount to miscarriage of justice -- Power under 91 Cr.P.C. must be exercised for production of such evidence, which would assist the Court in discovering the truth in the pursuit of justice.

(Para 9)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Preserving of call details and tower location – Right of accused -- As principles of natural justice are integral part of fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, any denial of the best available evidence or effective and substantial hearing to accused in proving defence would amount to denial of free and fair trial.

(Para 10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320, 397, 401 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Conviction by trial Court affirmed by Appellate Court – Acquittal on compromise --  Once a settlement is being effected, then in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 320 Cr.P.C., the accused ought to be acquitted as the offence stands compounded -- Revision petition allowed and the judgment of Appellate Court and judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court set aside -- Petitioner acquitted.

(Para 8-12)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Abetment to suicide – Quashing of summoning order -- Borrowing of Rs, 60,000/- -- Incident in shop of the first appellant threatening and assaulting complainant and her husband was on 15th June 2017 -- After that, notice u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was issued by “S” to the deceased on 27th June 2017 -- Suicide note was written three days after that, on 30th June 2017 -- Deceased committed suicide three days thereafter -- No allegation that any act was done by the appellants in the close proximity to the date of suicide -- By no stretch of the imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to instigation to commit suicide -- Offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC not made out -- Continuation of prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law -- Summoning order quashed.

(Para 8-13)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107 – Abetment to suicide -- Mens-rea – Instigation -- To attract the first clause, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide --  Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide -- The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide -- Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide.

(Para 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439, 482 – Bail in 41 FIRs – Common surety – Bail bond – Petitioner was involved in 41 cases of similar nature – Petitioner was ordered to be released on bail, however, even after a lapse of considerable period, the petitioner has not been released on bail on account of his inability to give separate sureties/personal bonds in each and every case –  Held, condition of furnishing a surety in each and every case separately, would be highly onerous – Trial Court/ Illaqua Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate directed to release the petitioner on bail in all the 41 cases on his executing one personal bond, in each case, as well as four common sureties, which would hold good for all the 41 cases.

(Para 11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 29, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case -- Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Alleged recovery of charas was 3.428 kgs -- Since only two samples of 26 grams each were sent to chemical examination that too without making the entire bulk homogenous, recovery, if any, from the bail petitioner can be said to be only of 52 grams, which is a small quantity -- Rigours of Section 37 of the Act not attracted – Bail allowed.

(Para 8-17)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143A – Cheque bounce complaint -- Interim compensation -- The Court had wide discretion to grant the interim maintenance, which could vary from 1% to 20% -- Trial Court granted the interim compensation in very casual and routine manner – No reasons recorded for granting 20% of the amount of the cheque in question as interim compensation – Matter remanded back to the trial Court to reconsider the issue regarding the payment of interim compensation.

(Para 9, 10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 7, 138 – Cheque bounce complaint – Prosecution of -- Drawer of cheque – Joint account -- Though, the cheque has been drawn on a joint bank account of the petitioner and her husband, but the cheque in question has been signed by her husband only and the liability regarding the dishonour of the cheque can be fastened on the drawer of the cheque -- Mere fact that the petitioner happens to be the spouse of the co-accused is hardly sufficient to condemn her as co-accused with him – Complaint and summoning order quashed qua the petitioner/ wife.

(Para 8-12)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity -- Regular bail – Recovery of 2400 tablets of ‘Parvion Spas’ -- Petitioner in custody since 28.07.2021 -- Trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future -- Court deemed it appropriate to allow the petition by dispensing with the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Bail allowed.

(Para 3, 8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- NDPS case -- Jump of bail – Wrong date noted by clerk of counsel --  Petitioner directed to surrender before the Special Court within a period of 10 days and on his appearance, he shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds subject to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

(Para 2-6)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Suspension of sentence in appeal – Deposit of 20% compensation amount – Deposit of minimum 20% amount is not an absolute rule, not accommodating any exception -- When Appellate Court considers the prayer u/s 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an accused, it is always open for the Appellate Court to consider whether it is an exceptional case, which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/ compensation amount -- In case, the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded.

(Para 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439, 482 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Regular bail -- Interim bail – High Court was of the view that prolonged incarceration with no prospect of the trial coming to an end makes a case for the grant of bail -- High Court granted bail only for 45 days by describing it as an interim bail -- But after granting the interim bail finally disposed of the bail application – Held, if an order granting interim bail was to be passed, the bail application should have been kept pending – When a Court concludes that the accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail pending trial, granting bail only for a limited duration is illegal -- Such orders violate the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- It puts an additional burden on the litigant as he is forced to file a fresh bail application for an extension of the bail granted earlier -- Appeal allowed, by modifying the impugned order, appellant enlarged on bail until the final disposal of the case.

(Para 4-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 438 – Cheating -- Anticipatory bail -- Habitual offender – 16 complaints/ FIR pending – Petitioners have not only cheated the present complainant but several other criminal complaints have been filed against them -- Apart from that,  petitioner No.2 was declared a proclaimed person and four FIRs were registered against him in this regard -- Thus, there are chances that the petitioners may abscond from the process of law -- Custodial interrogation of the petitioners would be required in the case – Petition dismissed.

(Para 1, 6-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 323, 325, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 54, 59 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(2)(v) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail -- Role and injury attributed to the appellant is on the thumb of the complainant -- Appellant in custody since 17.08.2022 -- As many as 20 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution and the evidence is yet to start, hence, the trial would take considerable time to conclude – Concession of bail granted to petitioner.

(Para 3-6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(c), 29, 37 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS Case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody for the last 01 year, 03 months and 29 days involved in two more cases u/s 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act and u/s 325, 323, 34 of IPC – Petitioner was nominated only on the basis of disclosure statement -- Charges were framed on 04.09.2023 and out of 19 witnesses none has been examined so far, thus trial is likely to take time to conclude – Held, no purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner detained -- Though recovered quantity falls in the commercial category, but the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is required to be balanced with Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 6-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Punjab Travel Professionals’ Regulation Act, 2012, Section 13 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Compromise quashing of FIR – Parties  have settled their dispute amicably -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive -- It will be in the interest of justice, if the settlement reached between the parties is accepted -- FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 2, 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 386, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190, 482 – Quashing of FIR – After filing of the challan, charges have already been framed by the trial Court – Petitioner has already filed criminal complaint so as to put forth his stand – No justification for quashing of the FIR.

(Para 3, 4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320, 397, 401 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Compromise after conviction at revisional stage – Acquittal of accused -- Waiver of cost of 15% -- Imposition of costs would be a matter of discretion of the Court -- Petitioner is a poor person, 15% of the cheque amount towards cost(s) of litigation can be waived off in the interest of justice -- Petition allowed, impugned judgments/order(s) set aside and petitioner acquitted.

(Para 9-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B(2), 365, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Snatching case – Regular bail – Snatching of Rs.2000/- -- Several other cases against the petitioner, including the cases under the NDPS Act -- However, there was no harm caused to the complainant and an amount of Rs.500/- was recovered by the police – Petitioner in custody since 29.05.2023 -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail pending trial.

(Para 1, 4-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120-B -- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), Section 3, 7 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of FIR/ Chargesheet -- Prosecution's case is that a hydrocarbon mixture was found in the seized tanker, which was being sold by the appellants, representing it to be petrol or diesel – Samples were sent more than two years back for testing, and  report has not yet received -- In the absence of the report, taking the charge sheet as it is, no material is placed on record to show that the liquid in the tanker was neither diesel nor petrol but a mixture of hydrocarbons -- Allegation of cheating is also made on the footing that thousands of customers were supplied with the said mixture instead of petrol or diesel -- It is too late for the State to file a report after a gap of more than two years -- Continuation of the prosecution will be an abuse of the process of law – FIR and the consequent charge sheet filed thereon are quashed and set aside.

(Para 6-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306, 323, 120-B, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Abetment to suicide – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Deceased himself had not left any suicide note alleging anything against the petitioner -- Cause of death was not of any injuries or any attributable act, rather, the same is stated to be by consuming of poison by the deceased -- Complaint by the father of the deceased only, who has already compromised the matter with the petitioner -- Offence u/s 306 IPC can be quashed on the basis of compromise – FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 8-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 406, 408, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 438 – Cheating -- Criminal breach of trust -- Anticipatory bail -- Business transactions, where the material supplied to the complainant company, is alleged to be of inferior quality -- Further the petitioner has also alleged that he has to recover around Rs 2 crores from the complainant company, as per their account statement -- Petitioner has already joined the investigation and the final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. has also been filed and he is facing the trial and that the entire case is based on documentary evidence, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is no more required – Petition allowed.

(Para 10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 317(2) -- Splitting of trial – Out of 31 accused presence of some of accused could not be precured -- Only 20 out of 31 accused persons were attending the Court -- When the High Court permitted splitting of the trial, two important aspects were not noted -- The first one was that the learned Magistrate was not satisfied that the police have made sufficient efforts to procure the presence of all the accused -- Second is order of further investigation – Therefore, this was not the stage at which the High Court could have permitted splitting of the case – Impugned order set aside.

(Para 2-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120-B, 201, 148, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail -- Two material witnesses of the prosecution have not supported the case of the prosecution -- Whether the remaining evidence available on record is sufficient to affix liability upon the petitioner and his co-accused shall be examined during the course of the Trial -- Petitioner is in custody since 13.01.2022 -- Only 02 of the 27 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and he is a first-time offender -- Further incarceration is not required – Bail allowed.

(Para 6-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 407 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 406 – Cheating case --  Transfer of trial – Jind to Jalandhar -- 19 cases registered at District Jalandhar, but in the present case, most of the victims/ witnesses belonged to District Jind -- Huge money was collected by the petitioners from poor and rustic villagers --  Language spoken by the prosecution witnesses is different from the language of Jalandhar region -- In case, the trial transferred from the Court of CJM Jind to the Court of CJM, Jalandhar, Victims/ witnesses shall be put to great inconvenience and hardship -- Allegations may be similar, but the victims and the witnesses are entirely different -- No case made out for transferring the case – Petition dismissed.

(Para 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201, 34 – Summoning as additional accused – Quashing of --  Complainant is not the eyewitness – Except that R.K used to threat to the deceased that she will kill him with the help of her friend, there is absolutely no other evidence against the petitioner --  Investigation, carried out by the investigating agency, found that as the deceased was in illicit relationship with R.K and they were found in compromising position by son of co-accused R.K, therefore, it is said son, who hit iron angle on the head resulting in his death – There is neither any allegation nor any evidence collected to the effect that petitioner was at or nearby the place of occurrence or helped the co-accused RK and son in murder  in any manner -- Thus, the test of more than prima facie case is not satisfied so as to summon the petitioner as an additional accused to face trial -- Summoning order set aside.

(Para 18, 19)

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 197, 468(2)(c), 470(3), 482 – Complaint under Insecticides Act -- Limitation – Cognizance of complaint -- Sanction Period consumed for obtaining the consent of the State Government to launch the prosecution is liable to be excluded while computing the limitation period -- If period of 5 months and 17 days is excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation, the complaint instituted after 5 years, 6 days from the date of commencement of limitation is beyond limitation period – Summoning order and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed for the reasons that complaint itself is not maintainable, being barred by limitation.

(Para 12-22)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 (X), (XIV), (XV) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 504, 506 & 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Criminal intimidation -- Offence under SC/ ST Act – Compromise quashing of FIR -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive -- It will be in the interest of justice, if the settlement reached between the parties is accepted – FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 7, 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 446 – Forfeiture of bail bond -- Surety of Rs.2 lacs -- Convict has surrendered -- Petitioners are not stated to be professional sureties, there is nothing to suggest that they had facilitated the escape of the convict or were aware of the likelihood of his absconding -- A lenient view can be taken in the facts and circumstances of the case – Amount of Rs.25000/- ordered to be paid by petitioner/ Surety.

(Para 2, 11-13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 323, 148, 149, 325, 285 IPC -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 27 – Attempt to murder -- Summoning as additional accused -- No specific allegation by the complainant except deposing in the statement that the petitioner No.2 was also sitting in the car, which was being driven by some other person at the time of the incident – It would not satisfy the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh's case 2014(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 623 = (2014) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14978 – Criteria for summoning a person as an additional accused to face the trial with other accused, is higher than the criteria required by the police to file a challan – Revision allowed --  Summoning order set aside.

(Para 8, 9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36A(4) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – NDPS case -- Default bail -- Extension of time – Time sought for collecting FSL report -- Two essential ingredients i.e. first,  the report of the Public Prosecutor suggests or indicates regarding the progress of the investigation and the second condition sine qua non is that specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days -- These two conditions are co-existent -- Non-satisfaction of even one condition will not give any entitlement to the prosecution for seeking an extension of 180 days -- Nothing stated in the report pertaining to progress of the investigation nor any reason has been given seeking detention of the accused -- Grant of bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C is a statutory and indefeasible right -- Petitioner ordered to be released on default bail.

(Para 10-15)

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (57 of 1994), Sections 4, 5(2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 482 -- Determination of sex of the foetus – Quashing of FIR -- Cognizance on police report – Permissibility of -- A complaint has to be filed – Complaint has already been filed by the competent authority -- Police cannot register an independent FIR, on its own -- Police after registering FIR have presented the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., directly to the Court --  FIR quashed, however, the material collected by the police during the investigation of the said FIR permitted to be used as evidence in the complaint case, subject to the proof of the same, in accordance with law.

(Para 7-9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Second petition u/s 482 Cr.P.c. -- There can be no blanket rule that a second petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. would not lie in any situation -- It would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the individual case, it is not open to a person aggrieved to raise one plea after the other, by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C., though all such pleas were very much available even at the first instance -- Such abuse of process cannot be permitted.

(Para 11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 25, 29 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of  India, Article 21 -- NDPS Case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 260 grams of heroin -- Marginally over and above the commercial quantity i.e., 250 grams and both the accused-petitioners were found travelling in car belongs to the other co-accused granted anticipatory bail – Petitioner in custody for 1 year, 2 months and 24 days --  After framing of charges no single prosecution witness has been examined by the prosecution, despite lapse of 6 months -- Examination of 10 prosecution witnesses is rightly to take long time -- Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the said Article also provides the right for speedy trial and otherwise also bail is a rule and jail is an exception -- Pendency of other FIRs involving the accused-petitioners cannot be a predicament to consider the case for regular bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 8-11)

A. Second bail application – Maintainability of -- An order for refusal of bail inherently carries characteristics of an interlocutory order -- In variation or alteration in the context in which a bail plea is dismissed confers on the detained accused right to file a fresh application for bail on certain changed circumstances -- Thus, an order rejecting prayer for bail does not disempower the Court from considering such plea afresh if there is any alteration of the circumstances.

(Para 5)

B. Condition of bail – Alteration in -- Conditions of bail could also be varied if a case is made out for such variation based on that factor -- Prohibition contemplated in Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) would not apply in such cases.

(Para 5)