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)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Default bail – Condition to furnish bail bond on same day – Permissibility of -- Learned JMIC imposed a condition that the bail and bonds to be furnished only on the same day by 4.30 p.m. – Held, at the time when default bail is granted then no such impractical, unreasonable and onerous time limit can be imposed for furnishing of bail and bonds -- Condition imposed is onerous, unreasonable and impractical and does not qualify the test of reasonableness under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Petition allowed, condition imposed by the learned JMIC by which the petitioner was directed to furnish surety by 4.30 PM on the same day is also set aside.

(Para 19-26)

B. Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section, 167(2), 437, 438, 439 – Bail matters – Fundamental rights – Life and liberty of accused -- For the purposes of considering bail matters, the Fundamental Rights especially under Article 21 of the Constitution of India have to be always kept in mind since the personal liberty of an individual is involved -- Judicial officers of District Courts should have full expertise not only on the practical aspects but also on the academic aspects pertaining to the Fundamental Rights -- Registrar General shall coordinate with the Director of the Judicial Academy, Chandigarh for arranging orientation course on specialized subject of Fundamental Rights to all the judicial officers of District Courts across the States of Punjab, Haryana and UT, Chandigarh.

(Para 28-29)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Absence of accused on one date – Cancellation of bail – Non-bailable warrants -- Mere absence of accused on one date before the trial Court in itself is not sufficient to conclude that he is absconding and it cannot be sole ground for issuance of non-bailable warrants -- Petitioner directed to appear before the learned trial Court and on his doing so, the learned trial Court shall admit him to bail on furnishing of fresh bail bonds along with costs of Rs.10,000/-.

(Para 5-8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211 -- Framing of charge – Role of Court – Evidential value of material on record – Assessment of -- Stage of -- At the time of framing of charges, the role of a Court is restricted to examining the material and documents which have been placed on record by the prosecution so as to determine whether a prima facie case based on the ingredients of the alleged offence, is even made out or not – Court is just to assess whether there is enough evidence to proceed with the trial -- Veracity or truthfulness of the material and evidence placed on record by the prosecution cannot be delved into by the Court while framing charges as evaluation of the material would take place when both the parties lead their respective evidence during trial.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 – Attempt to murder – Framing of charge -- Injury inflicted upon the victim need not even be directly lethal under ordinary circumstances -- Several factors, such as the type of weapon used, the manner in which it was employed, the motive behind the crime, the severity of the injury and the seat of injury are the relevant factors to be considered to discern the intention of the accused.

(Para 6)

A. Punjab Pre-mature Release of Life Convicts Policy, 2011 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder -- Life sentence till death – Pre-mature release -- Order of the trial Court in sentencing the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for life, with a rider to extend to full life, is clearly in violation of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Sriharan @ Murugan, 2016 (7) SCC 192 -- Such a sentence can be passed either by High Court or by Hon’ble Supreme Court only -- State authorities are not debarred from considering the case of the petitioner for premature release in the light of its policy dated 08.08.2011.

(Para 21-28)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 426, 427 – Murder -- Life sentence – Subsequent sentence – Concurrent running of Sentence -- Petitioner is already undergoing life imprisonment, therefore, even if she has been convicted and sentenced subsequently, the subsequent sentence is to run concurrently with the earlier sentence of life imprisonment.

(Para 34-36)

C. Constitution of India, Article 161, 226, 227 -- Punjab Pre-mature Release of Life Convicts Policy, 2011 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Murder -- Life sentence till death by Trial Court – Appeal against conviction pending – Pre-mature release – Petitioner/ lady has already undergone 17 years 2 months and 20 days of actual sentence (Total sentence including remission 22 years 7 months) -- Conduct of the convict during the last five years is to be taken into account -- Jail offence was committed more than 9 years ago -- Conviction and jail offence in question cannot be the reason to withhold the case of the petitioner for premature release -- Respondent-authorities directed to consider the premature release case of the petitioner -- Till the decision is taken by the competent authority regarding premature release of the petitioner as per this order, she be released on interim bail on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the ld. CJM concerned -- Order is subject to the final outcome of the Petitioner’s appeal.

(Para 19, 37-45)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Directors of Company -- High Court quashed the criminal proceedings as against respondent nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that they were not the Directors of the Company in default, on the date when the cheques were issued for encashment – Submission that they were Directors of the Company on the date of issue of cheques and further that they had signed the cheques as authorised signatories of the Company not disputed – Trial Court to decide the pending trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months -- Impugned order passed by High Court set aside.

(Para 3-10)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307, 506, 120-B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 438 -- Murder -- Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. – Despite the petitioner being specifically named as one of the assailants, who was armed with gun and despite the fact that there was eye-witness account in the form of statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., petitioner was declared innocent -- Police authorities at their own, disbelieved the version of eye-witnesses, clearly indicating the collusion of the police with the petitioner -- No illegality in the impugned order summoning the petitioner u/s 319 Cr.P.C. as an additional accused to face trial.

(Para 16, 17)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307, 506, 120-B -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 438 -- Murder -- Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. – Anticipatory bail -- Having regard to the role of the petitioner in the crime, who is specifically attributed to have given gunshot injury resulting in the death and also having caused gunshot injuries  and the gravity of the offence, Court finds the case to be unfit for grant of anticipatory bail even if the petitioner has been summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C. -- Simply because investigation is complete or petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation, cannot in itself be a ground to grant him anticipatory bail.

(Para 18)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheating – Quashing of summoning order – Revenue entry for more share of land -- Sale-deed based upon expired GPA – Stay was in operation – Effect of -- Allegation that petitioner and her mother in collusion with the revenue officials illegally, despite having the knowledge that their entitlement was only to the extent of 1/5th share, had got their share entered to the extent of 1/4th and thereafter, taking benefit of the error in the entries in the Jamabandi had fraudulently alienated the land to the extent of 1/4th – Held, essential ingredient to attract the mischief of Section 420 of the IPC is clearly amiss -- Complainant has not parted with the property -- Sale of the land, during the time when the stay was in operation, would at best give rise to action for contempt of Court and similarly, registration of sale deed on the basis of expired GPA, would not attract the mischief of Section 420 of the IPC -- Summoning order u/s 420 of the IPC along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 11-17)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Cheating -- Essential ingredients to attract the mischief of Section 420 of the IPC are:

(i) the accused must have intentionally deceived someone;

(ii) by the said deception, the accused must have induced the person so deceived (a) to deliver any property (b) to make alter, or destroy the whole or part of the valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is being capable of being converted into a valuable security;

(iii) the accused had dishonest intention at the inception.

(Para 13)

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 -- FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of the FIR quashed.

(Para 9-13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) -- NDPS case – Challan without FSL – Default bail – Recovery of 154 Kgs of Ganja Patti -- As the challan had been filed without the FSL report, the petitioner would be entitled to be released on default bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C -- Petition allowed.

(Para 11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 279, 304A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Death by rash and negligent driving – Acquittal -- Prosecution examined only 3 witnesses -- PW1 and PW2 disclosed in their cross-examination that they had seen the accused for the first time in the Court – PW3/ Doctor proved the postmortem report of the deceased – Prosecution did not examine the Investigating Officer of the case – Prosecution did not prove the site plan of the place of accident or the mechanical examination reports of the vehicles involved in the accident -- Identity of accused/ driver not established -- Conviction by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law -- Revision petition allowed, impugned judgments of conviction set aside.

(Para 8-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 279, 304A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 401 -- Death by rash and negligent driving – Acquittal -- Prosecution examined 3 witnesses -- PW1 and PW2 were the occupants of the tractor trolley, though both of them deposed about the manner of accident, but as per their statements, the truck driver had fled away – None of them seen the truck driver at the spot, both disclosed in their cross-examination that they had seen the accused for the first time in the Court – The only other witness examined by the prosecution is PW3-Doctor, who proved the postmortem report of the deceased -- Prosecution did not examine the Investigating Officer -- Prosecution did not prove the site plan of the place of accident or the mechanical examination reports of the vehicles involved in the accident -- Impugned judgments of conviction as recorded by the trial Court and as affirmed by the Appellate Court set aside.

(Para 9-12)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Cheque bounce complaint – Acquittal by trial court – Leave to appeal -- Cheque book lost complaint on 7.4.2014 whereas the cheques were presented in August, 2014 -- Applicant failed to give details of month and year when loan was given -- Complainant except making a bald statement that he had advanced the loan, miserably failed to prove existence of legally enforceable debt – Signatures on the cheques not disputed, will in itself be not sufficient for conviction of the respondent – Cheque was returned not only for the reason that payment was stopped but also for material alteration having not been signed by the drawer -- View taken by the court is plausible one – Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

(Para 10-13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintenance to wife – High Court reduced the maintenance from Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Trial Court to Rs. 1,000/- per month -- No justification for reduction to such extreme lower limit – High court order set aside, Trial Court order awarding Rs. 5,000/ per month as maintenance restored.

(Para 3-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 202 – Summoning of accused – Duty of Magistrate -- At the stage of summoning, Magistrate is required only to see prima facie evidence brought on record -- At the same time, it is to be kept in mind that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter -- Magistrate is required to apply its judicious mind in order to record his satisfaction that there is a prima facie case against the accused on the basis of allegations made in the complaint supported by the admissible material.

(Para 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 256 – Complaint case -- Non-appearance of complainant -- Dismissal for want of prosecution -- When the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution, it was fixed for defence evidence – Impugned order set aside -- Trial Court directed to restore the complaint and further directed to proceed in the case from the stage it had reached before the impugned order of dismissal was passed.

(Para 4)

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), Section 15(2), 15(3) – Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (34 of 1971), Section 3, 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Medical termination of pregnancy – Quashing of FIR -- Sale of MTP Kit itself cannot be said to be an offence punishable under the MTP Act -- FIR and the proceedings subsequent thereto cannot be allowed to continue – Petition allowed – FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto quashed qua the petitioner.

(Para 4, 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Non-cognizable offence – Criminal conspiracy -- Prayer for registration of FIR u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that except Section 120-B IPC, all the sections as mentioned by the petitioner in his application attract the non-cognizable offences and, therefore, the said application is not maintainable in the eyes of law -- When the complaint is not made out regarding the main offences involved, the offence of criminal conspiracy also does not survive on its own -- Impugned order passed by the Magistrate is in conformity with law and calls for no interference.

(Para 6)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Section 61, 1, 14, 75 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468 , 482 – Excise matter – Quashing of FIR -- FIR on 25.01.2016, the challan before the trial Court on 03.10.2020 – Reports of sample came on 04.07.2017, whereafter permission u/s 75 of the Act was sought from the Commissioner on 06.02.2020, which was received vide letter dated 24.09.2020 – Held, the prosecution as contemplated by Section 75(2) of the Act cannot said to have been launched within a period of one year of commission of the offence -- Considering the provision of Section 468 CrPC also, the period of three years for taking cognizance by the Court had expired even prior to 06.02.2020 – Proceedings are required to be dropped – FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 3, 4, 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Re-calling of witness -- CFSL report come after examination of appellant -- Request for recall of the appellant u/s 311, CrPC was justified as there was no occasion for him to bring the relevant facts relating to similarity of data before the Court, which arose after the CFSL expert was examined -- Application allowed.

(Para 4, 5, 12-14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 190, 200 – Police Report – Protest petition – Cognizance by Court -- On the receipt of the police report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can exercise three options -- Firstly, he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action -- Secondly, he may take cognizance of the offence u/s 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process; and thirdly, he may take cognizance of the offence u/s 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses u/s 200 -- Even in a case where the final report of the police u/s 173 is accepted and the accused persons are discharged, the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint or a Protest Petition on the same or similar allegations even after the acceptance of the final report -- Magistrate is not debarred from taking cognizance of a complaint merely on the ground that earlier he had declined to take cognizance of the police report.

(Para 11)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 391 – Cheque bounce complaint – Additional evidence at appellate stage -- Cheque dishonoured as drawer had closed the account and not on account of the difference in signature of the drawer -- Petitioner/ accused did not respond to the legal notice – Signature not disputed in statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – Thereafter 6 opportunities to lead defence evidence but he did not produce any witness – Defence evidence closed on the statement of the counsel for the petitioner and not by a Court order – Application for additional evidence by examining fingerprint and handwriting expert dismissed by Appellate Court -- No illegality or impropriety in the order – Revision dismissed.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 391 – Additional evidence at appellate stage -- Section 391 Cr.P.C. vests a discretion in the Appellate Court to permit additional evidence, if it is necessary, in order to enable it to give a correct finding -- Test is that such evidence should be necessary for the just and proper decision of the case -- Provision is not intended to remedy the negligence or latches of a party -- Not desirable to exercise power u/s 391 Cr.P.C. to enable the petitioner to fill in the lacunae.

(Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 307, 324, 379, 411, 483, 506, 34, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder – Regular bail – Petitioner is incarcerated for the last about one year and four months --  Petitioner had not participated in the main occurrence and had only facilitated the escape of accused, after they had allegedly committed the crime -- Only five witnesses, out of total 20 witnesses have been examined so far and the conclusion of the trial may take a long time -- Petition allowed.

(Para 7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 164, 173, 207, 272 – Police report – Providing copies to accused -- Section 173 will have to be read with Section 207 -- It is the obligation of the learned Magistrate to furnish free of cost, without any delay, copies of the police report, first information report, statements recorded under sub-section (3) of Section 161 of CrPC except the portion in respect of which there is an order passed by the learned Magistrate by invoking powers under sub-section (6) of Section 173, confessions and statements recorded u/s 164 and copies of the documents or relevant extracts forwarded along with the police report in accordance with sub-section (5) of Section 173 -- When the statements of the witnesses or documents covered by sub-section (5) of Section 173 are very bulky, the learned Magistrate has the discretion to allow the accused and his advocate to inspect the said documents instead of providing copies thereof.

(Para 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 272, 465 – Police report – Official language of State -- Language of Courts – Power u/s 272 is not a power to decide which language shall be used by the investigating agencies or the police for the purposes of maintaining the record of the investigation -- State Government may provide that the charge sheet must be filed in the official language of the State -- Section 272 deals with only the language of the Courts under Cr.PC – Even if such a requirement is read into Section 173, per se, the proceedings will not be vitiated if the report is not in the language of the Court -- The test of failure of justice will have to be applied in such a case as laid down in Section 465 of CrPC.

(Para 12-18)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211(6), 215 – Framing of charge – Language of court -- Even if the charge is not framed in the language of the Court, the omission to frame the charge in the language of the Court shall not be material unless it is shown that the accused was misled and it resulted in failure of justice.

(Para 14(a))

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 240, 272 -- Warrant case – Framing of charge – Language of court -- Charge shall be framed in writing and the learned Magistrate shall read over and explain the charge to the accused -- Though the Section does not make it mandatory, normally, the charge will be framed in the language of the Court determined in accordance with Section 272 of CrPC -- Therefore, if the accused is not conversant with the language in which the charge is framed, it is the duty of the Magistrate to explain the charge to the accused in a language which he understands.

(Para 14(c))

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 279 – Evidence – Language of court -- Where evidence is recorded in the language of the Court which is not understood by the accused or his pleader, there is an obligation on the part of the Court to explain the evidence to the accused or his lawyer, as the case may be.

(Para 14(g))

G. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 272 -- Language of court – Failure of justice -- If something which CrPC specifically requires to be done in the language of the Court is done in any other language, per se, the proceedings will not be vitiated unless it is established that the omission has resulted in failure of justice -- While deciding the issue of whether there is a failure of justice, the Court will have to consider whether the objection was raised at the earliest available opportunity.

(Para 17)

H. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 207, 208 – Supply of police report alongwith documents to accused – Language of documents --  An opportunity is available for the accused to contend that he does not understand the language in which the final report or the statements or documents are written -- But he must raise this objection at the earliest -- In such a case, if the accused is appearing in person and wants to defend himself, a requirement of supplying a translated version of the charge sheet and documents or the relevant part thereof concerning the said accused to him -- When the accused is represented by an advocate who fully understands the language of the final report or charge sheet, there will not be any requirement of furnishing translations to the accused as the advocate can explain the contents of the charge sheet to the accused -- If both the accused and his advocate are not conversant with the language in which the charge sheet has been filed, then the question of providing translation may arise -- Reason is that the accused must get a fair opportunity to defend himself -- He must know and understand the material against him in the charge sheet -- That is the essence of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 19)

I. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167, 173, 272 -- Police report not in language of court – Language not understandable to accused -- Default bail -- A charge sheet filed within the period provided either under Section 167 of CrPC or any other relevant statute in a language other than the language of the Court or the language which the accused does not understand, is not illegal and no one can claim a default bail on that ground.

(Para 19)

H. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 272 -- Police report – Language of court -- Central agencies like the National Investigation Agency, Central Bureau of Investigation, etc. investigate serious offences or offences having wide ramifications -- Such central agencies, in every case will not be in a position to file the final report in the language of the concerned Court as determined by Section 272 of CrPC.

(Para 21)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 269, 270, 188, 341, 506 -- Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (3 of 1897), Section 3 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Covid-19 FIR – Illegal mining – Visit by political person -- Quashing of FIR:

-- In a democratic country, if a well-established political person, on hearing serious complaints regarding any public issue, decides to verify the same by visiting the spot itself, it cannot be said that he intended to violate any promulgation issued by any government under Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 or Disaster Management Act, 2006.

-- Petitioner had gone on hearing the complaints of illegal mining was a riverbed, which was not at all habited, and the workers had fled away on noticing the presence of the petitioner -- No evidence that at any point in time, the petitioner was having any symptoms of COVID-19 infection -- No other evidence collected by the investigator against the petitioner, which may call for violation of Sections 269, 270, 188, 341, 506 IPC, and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.

Continuation of criminal proceedings shall amount to an abuse of the process of law, and the Court invokes its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC and quashes the FIR and all subsequent proceedings -- Petition allowed.

(Para 12-22)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 341 – Wrongful restraint -- Visit by political person -- On noticing the presence of the petitioner/ accused on the spot, the workers of the complainant firm had voluntarily fled away -- Petitioner claims that he visited the spot to check the ground reality about the allegations of illicit mining in an environmentally susceptible riverbed area, on receiving significant complaints being the people’s representative, watcher, and mouthpiece -- There is no evidence about stopping sand-laden vehicles or the vehicles going to ferry the sand -- No case for prosecution u/s 341 IPC.

(Para 16, 17)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 341 – Illegal mining –Visit by political person -- Criminal intimidation -- Petitioner claims that his objective was to check and find out the ground reality of various complaints received by him -- But no threat was made by the petitioner to anybody -- Petitioner's conduct at the spot does not point out any criminal intimidation -- Invocation of Section 506 IPC is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

(Para 18, 19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 365, 302, 34, 201 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder – Regular bail -- Case is based on the circumstantial evidence and the two planks of the case are the extra judicial confession and the evidence of last seen -- Whether the said evidence is sufficient to inculpate the petitioners shall be adjudicated upon during the course of trial -- Recovery of the scooter of the deceased is shown from the co-accused – Petitioners are in custody since 25.03.2022 and 09.04.2022 respectively and none of the 30 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon -- Further incarceration of the petitioners is not required – Bail allowed.

(Para 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory  bail -- Petitioner-accused agreed to deposit 10% of the amount allegedly claimed as Wrongful ITC Credit (Rs.70 Lakhs constituting 10% of Rs.7 Crores) -- High Court affirmed that order and consequently the condition – Held, grant of bail subject to onerous conditions, is ordinarily in exceptional circumstances and cannot be as a matter of course – Petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to such terms and conditions as the trial Court may impose, other than the condition of requiring pre-deposit.

(Para 1-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 399, 402 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 54, 59-A – Making preparation and assembly for committing dacoity -- Regular bail -- Parity in bail – Criminal antecedents – Recovery attributed to the petitioner is gandasi alongwith Rs.30,000/- -- Apart from the aforesaid fact, there is no distinguish feature and the allegations levelled -- Co-accused stand admitted to bail – Petitioner involved in two more cases -- Keeping in view the parity and the incarceration already suffered by the petitioner, bail allowed.

(Para 4-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 203, 256, 482 -- Non-appearance of complainant – Dismissed for want of prosecution – Inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- Complaint filed in the year 2013 and since then, petitioner was appearing himself or through his counsel, but the summoning order had not yet been passed -- Petitioner was unable to cause appearance before the trial court on the date for a valid reason of not being able to book the tickets from Calcutta, a place of which he was a resident – Application for exemption from personal appearance declined by Trial Court – Dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice – Availability of an alternative remedy of filing an appeal is not an absolute bar -- Interests of justice required the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction – Held, it is a fit case for invocation of the power vested in it by virtue of Section 482 of Cr.PC to secure ends of justice -- Impugned order set aside -- Trial Court ordered to restore the case to its original number and to decide it on merits.

(Para 8-14)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Cheque bounce complaint – Retirement of partner – Public notice -- Quashing of summoning order and complaint -- Premises owned by the appellants was taken on rent by the respondent no.3/firm – Issuance of cheques for rent -- High Court quashed the summoning order and complaints against respondent no.1 accepting the plea that he had retired from the partnership firm – Held, plea not tenable, it would be a matter of evidence to be proved before the trial Court, as to whether any Retirement Deed was issued and a public notice concerning the same was issued, before the complaints were filed -- Not the case set up by the respondent no.1 that in the Partnership Deed he was a sleeping partner in the firm -- Retirement Deed could not be taken on its face value, and treated as clinching evidence to quash the complaints -- Order passed by High Court set aside -- Complaints revived.

(Para 14-21)

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(4), 482 -- Quashing of FIR u/s 174A – Cheque bounce complaint – Proclaimed offender – Quashing of FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I.Act was for an offence other than aforesaid offences specified in sub section (4) of the section 82 of CR.P.C. – Order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender was/ is not legal -- Said order is the basis of the registration of the FIR u/s 174A IPC against the petitioner and is, therefore, fatal to the FIR in question -- Moreover, petitioner already been acquitted by the trial Court -- Impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are liable to be quashed -- FIR alongwith all consequential proceedings arising there from against the petitioner quashed.

(Para 2.3, 7.2-9)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 195 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – FIR u/s 174A of IPC -- Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), in its present form, encompasses Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) within its purview.

(Para 12.13-12.16)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Proclaimed person/ Proclaimed offender – Procedure -- Courts meticulously adhere to the statutory requirements in letter and spirit both, duly reflecting their compliance on the record prior to pronouncing an individual as a proclaimed person or offender and invoking criminal liability.

(Para 13.1)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174A – Proclaimed person/ Proclaimer offender – FIR u/s 174A IPC – Mandate of -- There is no mandatory prescription in the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring the Court to invariably initiate separate criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 174-A IPC in every instance where an individual fails to appear as summoned by way of proclamation -- Courts should act judiciously and exercise circumspection before embarking on the stringent path of instituting criminal proceedings u/s 174-A of IPC.

(Para 13.4)

D. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Proclaimed person/ Proclaimer offender – FIR u/s 174A IPC – Order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person is wholly silent as to when the proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner was issued; what was the date specified therein for the petitioner to appear in Court; when the proclamation was actually published; whether it was publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the petitioner ordinarily resided; whether it was affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the petitioner ordinarily resided or to some conspicuous place of such town or village; whether a copy thereof was also affixed to some conspicuous part of the court-house -- Further, the order does not contain a statement by the Court to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day and in the manner specified in clause (i) of Sub-Section (2) -- These facts were not even noticed in the order passed by the Court – Order is totally non-speaking and does not at all show that while passing it, the Court had applied its mind to the relevant facts and circumstances and taken any conscious decision that it was a fit case to invoke criminal liability of the petitioner for offence u/s 174-A of IPC -- It was/is cryptic, non-speaking and mechanical order sans any reasons or application of mind – Order declaring proclaimed person and FIR Quashed.

(Para 15-17)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Proclaimed person/ Proclaimed offender -- Guidelines framed:

Issuance of proclamation :

i. Preceding the issuance of the proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., the Court must deliberate upon its previous efforts to secure the presence of the through other legally permissible means. These efforts encompass the issuance of summons, the execution of bailable and/or non-bailable warrants against the accused. The Court must thoroughly document the results stemming from these endeavours, accompanied by pertinent facts and comprehensive details. It is incumbent upon the Court to satisfactorily ascertain that the individual in question has indeed absconded or is concealing himself to evade execution of warrant of arrest.

ii. The phrase "reason to believe," as articulated in Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, signifies that the Court must derive its belief from the available evidence and materials that the concerned person has absconded or is concealing himself to evade execution of warrant of arrest.

iii. Furthermore, in the proclamation, it must be set forth as to where and when the concerned individual must present himself. A designated location and time must be stipulated. Importantly, the specified date and time for appearance should not be less than a thirty-day from the date of publication of the proclamation.

Publication of proclamation–

iv. The publication of a proclamation, as outlined in Section 82(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, mandates adherence to all three prescribed modes, namely:

(a). The public reading of the proclamation in a conspicuous location within the town or village where the individual ordinarily resides.

(b). The affixation of the proclamation at a prominent spot at the individual's house or homestead.

(c). The display of the proclamation at a prominent location within the precincts of the court house.

v. All the aforesaid three modes of publication of a proclamation have to be adhered to. Failure to follow all or any of them renders the proclamation invalid in the eyes of the law. This is because the three sub-clauses (a) to (c) are mutually exclusive.

vi. If the Court so feels, in addition to the aforementioned trio of methods for securing the accused's presence, it may, at its discretion, also direct the publication of a copy of the proclamation in a daily newspaper circulating within the geographical area where the said individual ordinarily resides.

vii. If the Court, in its discretion orders publication of proclamation in newspaper, it shall also direct that the newspaper agency, upon the publication of the proclamation in the newspaper, shall dispatch a copy thereof to the accused's address, as is the procedure observed in civil matters, in terms of Order 5 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In essence, this supplementary measure ensures that the accused is duly apprised of the legal proceedings against him.

Declaration as “proclaimed person” or “proclaimed offender:

viii. Prior to the declaration of the concerned individual as a "proclaimed person" or "proclaimed offender," the Court shall pass a speaking order stating relevant facts and record its satisfaction that the proclamation has been duly and properly published in the prescribed manner.

ix. Furthermore, it must ensure that a period of not less than thirty days has expired between the date of publication of the proclamation and the date indicated in the proclamation for the individual's appearance. If the interval between the proclamation's publication and the date specified therein for appearance falls short of thirty days, such a publication of the proclamation cannot serve as the foundation for designating the individual in question as a "proclaimed person" or "proclaimed offender."

x. A person can be declared “Proclaimed offender” only where the proclamation published under sub-section (1) of section 82 Cr.P.C. is in respect of any of the offences as per table given below :-

xi. If person accused of the above offences fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect.

xii. In all other alleged offences, the concerned person can and shall be declared as a “proclaimed person”.

Invoking criminal liability for the offence under section 174-A of IPC:

xiii. It is imperative to bear in mind that the primary purpose behind the issuance and publication of proclamations under Section 82, as well as the attachment and sale of an individual's property, is the securing/compelling the appearance of the concerned person, to facilitate the expeditious trial of criminal cases by obviating the often protracted delays which impede their disposal.

xiv. It is noteworthy that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not prescribe an automatic or obligatory invocation of further criminal liability under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, in every case where an individual fails to appear pursuant to he being declared as ‘proclaimed person’ or ‘proclaimed offender’ after the publication of the proclamation under subsection (1) of Section 82 of the Code.

xv. Consequently, it follows that even subsequent to the formal declaration of an individual as a "proclaimed person" or "proclaimed offender," the Court still retains the discretion to determine whether it is judicious to initiate the rigorous criminal proceedings under Section 174-A of the IPC, being mindful that the offence carries a punishment of imprisonment for up to seven years, coupled with a fine.

xvi. In arriving at such a pivotal decision, the Court should exercise due circumspection, once more apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of each case considering the majesty of law vis-a-vis the nature and gravity of the offence that triggered the publication of the proclamation under subsection (1) of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.; the potential impact of said offence on the victim or society at large; steps, if any, taken for the attachment and sale of property of the person concerned and the result thereof; the stage/status of the ongoing trial, any mitigating factors that may favor the proclaimed person or offender, and conversely, any aggravating factors against them. It is thereafter, that the Court should pass a speaking and reasoned order for initiating criminal proceedings against the proclaimed person or offender for the offense under Section 174-A of the IPC.

xvii. Once the Court decides to proceed against the petitioner for an offence under Section 174-A of the IPC, it is imperative to institute a formal written complaint in the competent jurisdictional court. This imperative arises from the prevailing provision of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.

(Para 19)