Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120-B -- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), Section 7 -- Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Section 29 – Quashing of FIR -- No allegation of any cheating -- In CRM-M-7268-2008, Pardeep Kumar Garg and other’ case, decided on 23.05.2012, FIR was quashed as complaint is maintainable and registration of FIR is misuse of process of law -- FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners quashed – Order will not stand in the way of any proceedings being taken after following the due process of law.

(Para 5, 13-15)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 341, 379-B -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(2)(va) – Snatching – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Offence for which the accused have been charged are not of serious nature -- Compromise will go a long way in ironing out the differences for betterment of future life of the parties -- Petition for quashing the FIR allowed qua the petitioners.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 180 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 162 – Refusal to sign statement -- No statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of any investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr. PC, which is reduced to writing, is required to be signed by the person making the statement and that section 180 of the IPC gets attracted only if a statement is refused to be signed which a public servant is legally competent to require the person making the statement to sign.

(Para 22)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211, 397, 482 – Quashing of charge -- Small window that the law, through judicial precedents, provides is to look at the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected in course of investigation, without a rebuttal thereof by the accused, and to form an opinion upon consideration thereof that an offence is indeed not disclosed from it -- Unless the prosecution is shown to be illegitimate so as to result in an abuse of the process of law, it would not be proper to scuttle it.

(Para 17)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211, 397, 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 406, 506, 379, 120B, 180 -- Quashing of charge -- It is trite that the conspiracy to commit an offence is by itself distinct from the offence to do which the conspiracy is entered into and that such an offence, if actually committed, would be the subject-matter of a separate charge -- Allegations that the petitioner was found counting the cash received by the principal accused -- Involvement of the petitioner, howsoever limited, cannot be ruled out at this stage and, therefore, the trial ought to be permitted to proceed.

(Para 18)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(c), 25, 29 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Regular bail on parity – More FIRs pending – Effect of -- State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that petitioner is involved in number of FIRs -- However, State is not in a position to distinguish the case of the petitioner qua the co-accused so far as grant of bail is concerned – Without commenting on the merits of the case, on the basis of parity of petitioner vis-a-vis co-accused, the petitioner granted bail.

(Para 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Cheating – Anticipatory bail -- Condition for grant of bail on undertaking for deposit of Rs.22,00,000/- in the form of FDR in the Trial Court – Held, such an approach would not be warranted in cases of private disputes where private parties complain of their money being involved in the offence of cheating -- If at all the offence alleged against the appellant is proved resulting in his conviction, he would be bound to suffer penal consequence(s) but despite such conviction he may not be under any obligation to repay the amount allegedly received from the complainants -- This too is an aspect which the High Court exercising jurisdiction u/s 438 of the Cr. PC did not bear in mind – Held, High Court fell in grave error in proceeding on the basis of the undertaking of the appellant and imposing payment of Rs.22,00,000/- as a condition precedent for grant of bail -- Matter remitted back to High court for re-consideration of the application for pre-arrest bail.

(Para 17-30)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 83 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Service of summons – Proclaimed person -- It is not borne out as to how the petitioners were duly served before initiating proceedings u/s 83 Cr.P.C. -- Such a recourse is not sustainable in law i.e. without recording satisfaction by learned Magistrate as contained u/s 82(3) Cr.P.C. to the effect that Court found that proclamation was duly published -- 30 days’ time, as mandated by Section 82 Cr.P.C. was not granted -- Impugned orders cannot be sustained -- Petition allowed, impugned orders quashed qua petitioner.

(Para 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 338 -- Electrocution of victim – Summoning of U.P.C.L. through its Managing Director as additional accused – Ex. P.11 and P.13 were there on record by which an attempt was made by the U.P.C.L. to make house owner liable for any untoward incident in future, but by doing this it cannot absolve it from its legal responsibility to maintain the lines – It is on record that the accused/ house owner in the year 2016, wrote a letter to the U.P.C.L. that due to landslide a line was bent, which was admitted by P.W.10, in his cross-examination, although, he stated that the damaged line was repaired by the U.P.C.L – Held, it cannot be said that the negligence was not there on the part of U.P.C.L., which is the main functionary to manage the network of the electric lines -- By the impugned order, the U.P.C.L. has only been directed to face the trial as an accused and yet the U.P.C.L. has every opportunity to defend itself from the prosecution – No infirmity in the impugned judgment and orders.

(Para 1, 5-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 182 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195(1)(a) – False complaint to Superintendent of Police – Kalandra u/s 182 IPC by SHO – Held, kalandra for the offence u/s 182 IPC could be instituted only by the Superintendent of Police or his superior to whom the alleged false complaint was made and not by the SHO – Therefore, no cognizance of the alleged offence can be taken -- Petition allowed, impugned Kalandra quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

(Para 6-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375, 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape – Quashing of Final report/ Police report -- Consensual relationship – Prosecutrix was a married woman having her husband and children and was fully aware that the petitioner was also a married man -- She maintained sexual relationship with the accused on many occasions and stayed with the petitioner/ accused in a room in a hotel -- It is difficult to conclude that the prosecutrix had not given consent for the sexual relationship -- Impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed, exercising the inherent power conferred on the Court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. – Petition allowed.

(Para 22-24)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Illegal custody – Compensation – Writ jurisdiction – Public Law remedy -- Petitioner was illegally kept in judicial custody between 14.02.2014 to 27.07.2014 for a crime, which has not been committed by him – Subsequently the police submitted the final form stating the mistake of fact, the petitioner was discharged by the learned court – Case of the petitioner is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India under the Public Law Remedy -- Respondent-State directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the petitioner within six weeks as a compensation for illegally detaining the petitioner into the custody for the aforesaid period.

(Para 14-20)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 – Murder – Acquittal -- Ante-timed FIR -- Original FIR clearly shows that there is some interpolation in the time of its lodging mentioned therein -- It is evident from naked eye that ‘1’ has been converted into ‘9’ and ‘5’ has been rounded off to make ‘0’ whereas ‘PM’ has been converted into ‘AM’ -- In other words, 1:50 PM has been changed to 9:00 AM -- Trial Court completely lost sight of the fact that not only the time has been changed but the word ‘PM’ has also been interpolated and converted into ‘AM’ – Thus FIR has been ante-timed from 1:50 PM to 9:00 AM -- This entitles the accused to be given the benefit of doubt.

(Para 12, 13)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 – Murder -- Delay in sending FIR report to court – FIR report was sent to the Court with the delay of about 4 days -- FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and a valuable piece of evidence especially for the purpose of appreciating the evidence adduced at the trial -- FIR casts a doubt on its authenticity.

(Para 13)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 – Murder – Acquittal -- Appellant no. 2 died -- Unnatural behaviour and conduct of the eyewitnesses/ son and nephew of the deceased, ante-timing of the FIR and that the ‘loi’ (blanket) and the cycle alleged to be that of the accused/appellants left behind at the site of the incident were not produced before the Court, compels the Court to doubt the presence of the son and nephew of the deceased at the site -- Delay in conducting the post-mortem – There is difference in the name of the weapons of crime – Accused/ appellant No.1 acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt.

(Para 10, 23-25)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(2)(N), 506, 294, 323 --  Constitution of India, Article 226 – Rape – Quashing of FIR – Delay in lodging of FIR – Long standing relationship between prosecutrix and petitioner – There is no allegation that there was false promise to marry – There is also FIR against other men by prosecutrix which shows that FIR has been lodged malafidely due to break in their relationship or for some other ulterior motives – FIR quashed, writ petition allowed.

(Para 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 409, 420, 506, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 173, 197, 482 – Misappropriation of public funds -- Prosecution of public servant -- Sanction is required only to launch the prosecution and not for investigation of the cases.

(Para 10)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8, 12 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO matter – Regular bail -- Mail child victim is 10 year old – Petitioner in custody since 30.04.2023 -- Pre-trial incarceration is not the rule -- No fruitful purpose shall be served by allowing the petitioner to be kept in custody till the conclusion of trial -- Apprehension expressed on behalf of the respondent regarding likelihood of influence being exerted on prosecution witnesses, can be duly taken care of by putting the petitioner to appropriate terms -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 1-9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 25, 29, 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Commercial quantity – Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act – Speedy trial -- Petitioner in custody since 1.6.2021 -- Trial is not likely to conclude within short time -- Indisputably, accused has constitutional right for speedy trial -- Weighed against such constitutional right, it cannot be said that the rigors of Section 37 of the Act can have efficacy in perpetuate and more particularly in case where trial is not concluded within a reasonable period -- Nothing on record to suggest that the delay in trial has been caused for any reason attributable to the petitioner – Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be release on bail.

(Para 6-9, 17)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 285, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Compromise quashing of FIR – Petitioners/ accused had put the scrap articles on fire, which had caused damage to the property of complainant -- Nature of dispute between the parties is by and large private in nature -- Final outcome of prosecution against the petitioners either way is not going to harm the interest of society at large -- Both sides belong to the same area and have their business premises nearby – Petition allowed, FIR u/s 285 and 34 of IPC alongwith consequent criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 3, 6-9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – NDPS case – Anticipatory bail – Cultivation of 278 plants of cannabis –Demarcation got conducted, which reveals that concerned khasra number though was in possession of accused, but was under co-ownership of several individuals – Custodial interrogation of accused not required by the Investigating Agency – Anticipatory bail granted.

(Para 3-5)

Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011 (33 of 2012), Section 39(1)(a) (c), 47, 50 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 304, 120-B --  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Regular bail – Conspiracy to manufacture and sale of spurious liquor – Petitioner is alleged to have supplied caps for bottling of spurious liquor -- Petitioner is in custody since 19.04.2023 -- Pre-trial incarceration is not the rule -- Many of the co-accused have already been released on bail – Investigation complete, Challan presented in Court -- No fruitful purpose would be served by prolonging custody of accused till conclusion of trial, which is likely to take some time -- Bail allowed.

(Para 7-11)

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(x) – Offence under SC/ST Act -- Mens rea -- Delay of two days in FIR -- Except abusing the complainant with her caste name, there is no allegation that the appellant with a view to intentionally insult or intimidate or humiliate the complainant, abused her and that too in a place within the public view -- To attract the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act, the mens rea is the essential ingredient -- If in the course of a quarrel or due to some other grouse, the accused abused the complainant by using the caste name, the said act by itself does not automatically attract the offence Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act -- Appellant acquitted.

(Para 10-14)

B. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(x) – Offence under SC/ST Act -- Public view -- The expression “public view” as enshrined in Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST, has to be interpreted to mean that the public persons present (howsoever small number it may be), should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties.

(Para 10)

C. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(x) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- Offence under SC/ST Act -- Incident of 08.00 PM on 22.05.2005 -- Complainant had ample opportunity to report the matter to the police, still the report was lodged at about 7:30 PM on 24.05.2005, after a delay of about two days and there is no explanation for the said delay -- Prosecution did not lead any evidence to indicate the sufficient reasons for reporting the matter so late -- Lodging of the complaint after an unexplained and inordinate delay is also a strong circumstance to doubt the commission of offence.

(Para 11)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 243 -- Defence witness – Evidential value -- Deposition of a defence witness cannot be discarded or disbelieved only on the ground that he was supporting the case of the accused -- Every defence witness has to be treated at par with a prosecution witness and if the deposition of a defence witness is found to be creditworthy, the same can always be believed and relied upon by the courts.

(Para 12)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Dishonour of cheque -- Maintainability of the complaint – Company not impleaded as party/ accused -- Complaint against Director in absence of the company – Held, for maintaining prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, the company must be joined as an accused -- The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the dragnet on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself --  Trial court acquitted the accused -- Application for leave to appeal rejected.

(Para 2, 8, 9, 14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- NDPS case – Interim regular bail -- Marriage of daughter – Petitioner allowed to attend the marriage of his daughter only for 01 day in police custody.

(Para 7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 -- Summoning as additional accused – Discretionary power of court -- Pre-requisites -- For exercise of the power u/s 319, Cr. PC is that the evidence on record must show the involvement of a person in the commission of a crime and that the said person, who has not been arraigned as an accused, should face trial together with the accused already arraigned -- However, the court holding a trial, if it intends to exercise power conferred by section 319, Cr. PC, must not act mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence has come on record implicating the person sought to be summoned; its satisfaction preceding the order thereunder must be more than prima facie as formed at the stage of a charge being framed and short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction.

(Para 9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 419, 420, 323, 406, 506 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(r) & (s) -- Summoning as additional accused – FIR is not such where one finds complete absence of any reference to the brother of “D” who had joined “D” in assaulting and abusing the complainant or that the allegations are entirely “D” centric with none else playing any role -- It is not that involvement of brother of “D” in the crime is being referred to for the first time in the court – Appellant was not named in the FIR; but, that by itself, cannot be held to be decisive -- Once it is conceded that the appellant is a sibling of one of the named assailants, the material for forming the requisite satisfaction cannot be said to be non-existent -- Special Court formed the requisite satisfaction prior to summoning the appellant to face trial with “D” -- Order of the Special Bench and High Court affirming it cannot be faulted -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 10-13)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143(3) – Cheque bounce complaint – Speedy trial -- Complaint is still pending for the service of respondent despite the fact that the complaint was instituted five years back – It would be in the interest of justice that the trial Court be directed to decide the complaint in a time bound manner -- Court of learned ACJM, is lying vacant, therefore learned CJM directed to withdraw the case and to transfer the same to any other competent court who shall decide it as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months.

(Para 4-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 323, 325 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Murder – Life imprisonment – Suspension of sentence in appeal -- Applicant/appellant No.5 has already undergone actual custody of 02 years, 03 months and 04 days – Sentence of co-convicts has already been suspended by – Appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future – Without commenting on the merits of the case remaining sentence of applicant/appellant No.5 suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

(Para 6-7)

A. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), Section 18(A)(1), Section 28 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468, 469 – Limitation – Bar to take cognizance – Quashing of criminal complaint/ proceedings -- Maximum punishment of one year for alleged offence -- Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. bars the concerned Court from taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation – Report of the Laboratory was received on 05.03.2009 & thus, the limitation to file complaint would expire on 04.03.2010 while the same has been filed by the Drug Inspector on 07.06.2012 i.e. approximately after 3 years and 3 months when period of limitation was long over – Despite of there being no application for condonation of delay, summoning order dated 08.06.2012 was passed by the Court clearly beyond jurisdiction -- Entire proceedings right from registration of the complaint are rendered unsustainable.

(Para 8-10)

B. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), Section 18(A)(1), Section 28 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Firm as accused without any representative -- Quashing of criminal complaint/ Summoning order -- In the complaint, only the firm has been arrayed as accused without impleading it through any of its authorised representative -- Criminal proceedings against the company only, when sentence of imprisonment cannot be imposed on the juristic person are an exercise in futile -- Petition allowed, Criminal Complaint, summoning order and all other consequential proceedings quashed .

(Para 11, 12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 41A, 439 – Cheating – Forgery – Regular bail – Non-compliance of notice u/s 41, 41A of Cr.P.C -- Petitioner is in custody since 13.04.2023 – Investigating agency is duty bound to comply with the mandate of Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C -- Directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar's case 2014 (8) SCC 273 = (2014) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15107 are to be mandatorily complied with -- Court is required to satisfy itself on the compliance of Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. and non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail -- No notice issued to the petitioner, therefore Court deemed appropriate to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 4-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 353, 332, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Compromise quashing of FIR  -- Acquittal -- Offences alleged are petty in nature – No impediment in accepting the prayer made by petitioners for quashing of FIR – FIR alongwith consequential proceedings i.e. Police Challan quashed and set aside and petitioner acquitted of the charges framed against him.

(Para 10, 11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 148, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail -- Investigation already stands concluded – Charges framed -- Even after the expiry of more than 2 years and 5 months of custody, only one witness (complainant) has been examined that too partly as his cross-examination is yet to commence, whereas there are total 20 witnesses cited by the prosecution and thus trial is likely to take time -- Considering the long incarceration of the petitioner, who is not involved in any other case and one of the co-accused in similar circumstances with same allegations has already been released on bail -- Court do not see any justification to extend his incarceration any further --  Petition allowed.

(Para 6, 7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 20, 27A, 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Recovery of 10 quintals, 37 Kgs of poppy husk and 34 Kgs of Ganja from co-accused -- Petitioner in custody for the last 10 months and 17 days, although he was involved in one more case, i.e. under Section 174-A IPC, in which he has already been sentenced for the period already undergone by him – Having regard to the fact that no recovery was effected from the petitioner and his name emerged on the basis of disclosure statement only, petitioner admitted to bail and ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 4, 5)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 71, 73 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Non-bailable warrants -- Non-bailable warrant should normally not to be issued if presence of the accused could be secured -- Warrant could be issued when the person will not voluntarily appear in Court or police authorities are unable to find the person to serve him with a summon -- The Court should avoid issuance of non-bailable warrant in the first instance to secure presence of the accused and it should be applied as a last resort.

(Para 3)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 71, 73 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Non-bailable warrants – Bailable warrants -- Petitioners, who are the advocates, when came into knowledge with regard to issuance of non-bailable warrant, they immediately appeared before the concerned court requesting to convert the non-bailable warrant into the bailable warrant, for which the application was also preferred on the same day, however, the concerned court has not accepted the application on the ground that the complainant had not given “no objection” for the same – Held, non-bailable warrant deserves to be converted into bailable warrant -- Non-bailable warrant converted into bailable warrant – Conditions imposed.

(Para 1-5)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 17A (as amended by the Act of 2018) – Enquiry/ Inquiry/ investigation of offences -- Complaints against Panchayat officers/ Sarpanch -- Whether the protection under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the initiation of enquiry or inquiry or investigation without the previous approval of the competent authority is omnibus, universal and absolute so as to take within its sweep all the offences triable under the 1988 Act?”

-- Sufficient amount of fund under the various schemes is provided to the gram panchayats which is required to be spent under the overall guidance of the officials of the Rural Panchayat and Development Department -- In order to ensure that the funds are spent on the development and growth of the village, it is necessary to provide proper checks and balances – Office bearers who are covered by the definition of the public servants are required to be protected from the false complaints, however, at the same time, there is a requirement to bring transparency in use of the public funds -- In these circumstances, such public servants cannot be given a special privilege unless so intended by the Statute.

Writ petitions dismissed with the liberty to the petitioners to take all the objections before the Vigilance Bureau or before the trial Court.

(Para 31)

Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 (20 of 2015), Section 13(2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 279, 307, 336, 34, 427 -- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (59 of 1960), Section 11 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Cruelty to animal/ cow -- Regular bail – Concealment w.r.t. earlier FIR -- Allegations against the petitioner are very serious, he, along with others, was carrying cows in a pitiable condition in a Bolero pick-up during midnight -- When the complainant tried to stop them, they rammed their vehicle against the vehicle of the complainant and ran away -- Even stones were thrown on the complainant party and cows, which were being carried allegedly for slaughtering, were also thrown in their way to stop the complainant party to chase them -- Trial of the case is yet to start -- Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has tried to mislead the Court and the gravity of offence, petition dismissed.

(Para 8-11)

A. Constitution of India, Article 21 – Presumption of innocence -- Accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty -- Presumption of innocence is a facet of Article 21 of Constitution of India.

(Para 18)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 205, 317 – Exemption from appearance of accused -- Following parameters can be applied for grant of exemption from personal appearance by the Courts while exercising power under Sections 205 and 317 of the Code -- The personal appearance of the accused should be dispensed with when the accused is:-

i) a woman;

ii) an elderly person;

iii) a person with disability;

iv) when accused is facing inconvenience and unjustified ordeal on account of delay in trial attributable to the prosecution;

v) facing extreme hardship i.e. economic and physical;

vi) required to travel a long distance to attend the trial.

These instances are not exhaustive but only illustrative.

(Para 19)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 205, 317 – Exemption from appearance of accused -- When the presence of an accused becomes indispensable at any subsequent stage of an inquiry or trial, the Court has ample powers to secure his presence in such eventuality – One size fits all approach cannot be taken while exercising the powers u/s 205 and 317 as each case is required to be assessed on its own facts and circumstances.

(Para 20)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 205, 317 – Exemption from appearance of accused -- If the trial is being delayed on account of the absence of the accused when the witnesses are required to identify him, the accused can be directed to be present for this purpose -- Courts should only order appearance of the accused when it becomes indispensable.

(Para 22)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 205, 317 – Sections 341, 379, 448, 451, 452, 506, 34 -- Exemption from appearance of accused – High Court exempted personal appearance of accused before Trial court subject to the following conditions:

i) Petitioners shall be represented through their counsel;

ii) shall not delay/stall the trial proceedings;

iii) shall not dispute their identity as accused;

iv) shall have no objection if the prosecution evidence is recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel;

v) shall appear before the trial Court as and when required; and

vi) any other condition which the trial Court may impose.

(Para 23)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 147, 148, 149, 324, 506 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 27, 54, 59 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Conviction by Trial court – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Acquittal -- Petitioners and private respondents are closely related to each other -- Steps taken by the parties to instant petition cannot be said to have any adverse impact on the interest of the society as a whole -- Dispute was more or less private in nature -- FIR along with all consequential proceedings quashed -- Conviction and sentence set aside and petitioners are acquitted.

(Para 11-13)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity -- Regular  bail – Fair trial – Recovery of 2Kg 45 grams of ‘Cannabis’ -- Constitutional guarantee of expeditious trial cannot be diluted by applying the rigors of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act in perpetuity -- Petitioner is in custody since 18.12.2021 and the facts suggest that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future -- Nothing on record to suggest that delay in trial is attributable to the petitioner -- Bail petition allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 2, 8, 17, 18)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Murder -- Life imprisonment – Premature release – Non-deposit of fine – Not known to anyone in locality – Ground of rejection -- Petitioner requires to undergo actual sentence of 10 years; and sentence of 14 years by including the remission period, as per Policy, but despite having undergone actual sentence of more than 14 years; and total sentence of more than 22 years by including remission;

-- In case, petitioner has not paid the fine imposed by the court, he is required to undergo default sentence as per the trial court judgment but that cannot be reason to consider petitioner’s case for premature release.

-- If family of petitioner has shifted from earlier address, that again cannot be the reason to decline the relief, once petitioner has fulfilled the parameters provided in the policy.

-- simply because petitioner is not known to anyone in Ludhiana, cannot be a ground to presume that his presence there will create a law and order situation.

Petition allowed, respondents directed to release the petitioner forthwith, if not required in any other case.

(Para 1, 5-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 159, 160 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Affray – Quashing of FIR -- Alleged fight was between two friends, dining together at a Dhaba on a highway in the wee hours of the morning -- Allegation of them being under the influence of liquor was not shown to have been confirmed by the medical report -- No injury was reflected – No material that there was a supervening apprehension of threat or danger to a third person present at the spot, eventuating in the peace being disturbed -- Suffice it to say that the FIR ex facie lacks the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 159 IPC, for which the petitioner has been made to stand trial -- Allowing the proceedings to continue against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law -- FIR and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

(Para 5-16)

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(x) -- Intentionally insulting a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view – Neither the first F.I.R. nor the charge-sheet refers to the presence of a fifth individual (a member of the public) at the place of occurrence (apart from the appellant, the complainant, his wife and their son) -- Since the utterances, if any, made by the appellant were not “in any place within public view”, the basic ingredient for attracting section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was missing/absent.

(Para 17)

B. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(x) -- Intentionally insulting a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe – If one calls another an idiot (bewaqoof) or a fool (murkh) or a thief (chor) in any place within public view, this would obviously constitute an act intended to insult or humiliate by user of abusive or offensive language -- Even if the same be directed generally to a person, who happens to be a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, per se, it may not be sufficient to attract section 3(1)(x) unless such words are laced with casteist remarks.

(Para 18)

C. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(x) -- Intentionally insulting a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view – Trial of accused -- Before an accused is subjected to a trial for alleged commission of offence under section 3(1)(x), the utterances made by him in any place within public view are outlined, if not in the F.I.R. but at least in the charge-sheet so as to enable the court to ascertain whether the charge sheet makes out a case of an offence under the SC/ST Act having been committed for forming a proper opinion in the conspectus of the situation before it, prior to taking cognizance of the offence.

(Para 18)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(b)(ii)(C) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Fact that the co-accused who was released on bail has not surrendered cannot be a germane factor to decline bail to the co-accused/ appellant.

(Para 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211, 227 -- Charge -- Psychological Evaluation test – Discharge of accused -- Settled proposition of law is that at the stage of hearing on the charges entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed -- In case no offence is made out then only an accused can be discharged -- Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of trial -- At the stage of charge, the Court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons -- Though Psychological Evaluation test report only may not be sufficient to convict an accused but certainly a material piece of evidence -- High Court could not have opined that the case was not made out even for framing of charge – Appeal allowed, order of High Court set aside.

(Para 11, 18-20)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Complaint for dishonour of cheque -- Absence from trial – Non-bailable warrants -- Anticipatory bail -- A person released on bail is already in constructive custody of law and if law requires him to come back to custody for specified reasons, application for anticipatory bail would not lie -- Petition dismissed being not maintainable.

(Para 7, 8)

Constitution of India, Article 20, 142 – Voice sample – Right to Privacy -- Magistrate is given the power to order for collection of voice sample for the purpose of investigation of a crime until explicit provisions are engrafted in the CrPC by the Parliament -- Such direction was issued by invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India – No infirmity with the impugned judgment of the High Court as also of the Special Court ordering the accused to give his voice sample to facilitate investigation of the crime. Ritesh Sinha’s case (2019) 8 SCC 1 relied.

(Para 3, 4)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Cheque bounce complaint – Account holder -- Joint liability – For an offence u/s 138 to be made out a cheque has to be issued by the account holder under his name and signature -- It is only the holder of the account on which the cheque is drawn can be made liable and such culpability cannot be extended to others except as provided u/s 141 N.I. Act.

(Para 13)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Joint liability – Joint Account – Signatory of cheque – Requirement of -- In case of individual persons, a person other than a person who has drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him cannot be persecuted for an offence u/s 138 N.I. Act, unless the bank account is jointly maintained and that he was a signatory to the cheque.

(Para 14)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Bank also summoned – Quashing of proceedings -- Petitioner/Bank has been made a party by the complainant where no role can be attributed to the bank -- Bank is only the custodian of the money of the customers and has to comply with the instructions of such customers -- In case of insufficiency of funds, the bank is only to report the same and as such, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be liable for any act of the customer who has issued the cheque which was later dishonoured – Proceeding as against the petitioner/ Bank set aside and quashed.

(Para 15-17)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Fraud -- Anticipatory bail – Petitioner executed agreement to sell in favour of KS and power of attorney was duly executed and registered before the Sub Registrar, wherein he was photographed -- Petitioner fraudulently entered into an agreement to sell with the complainant also regarding the same piece of land and accepted the earnest money, however, did not execute the sale deed -- Land sold through KS to another person -- Intention to defraud from the very inception – Anticipatory bail declined.

(Para 7-9)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 3, 4, 45 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Offence under Money-Laundering Act – Regular bail -- High Court has neither considered the rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 nor has considered the seriousness of the offences alleged against accused for the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 -- High Court has not at all considered the fact that the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 is still going on – Impugned orders passed by the High Court enlarging respective respondent No. 1 on bail are unsustainable -- Matters remitted back to the High Court for afresh decision on the bail applications.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 201, 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner has undergone actual custody of 04 years, 10 months and 07 days -- Only 06 Pws have been examined out of a total of 23 Pws -- It is thus evident that the trial is not likely to be concluded at an early date -- Keeping in view the period of custody undergone, Court deemed it appropriate to grant him regular bail.

(Para 3-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34, 120B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody for a period of 05 years, 09 months and 23 days -- Trial is getting delayed and speedy trial is a constitutional right provided to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Furthermore, the petitioner also becomes entitled to bail on the principle of parity as co-accused has been granted bail – Petition allowed and petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 4, 5)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 452 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211 – House trespass -- Exclusive possession – Framing of charge -- Nothing placed on record by the petitioner to even prima facie show exclusive possession of the property in dispute -- Once this had not been proved, no offence would be made out u/s 452 IPC -- Trial Court rightly did not frame any charge u/s 452 IPC – Revision dismissed.

(Para 10-12)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379, 380 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211 – Theft – Framing of charge -- Apart from the bald statement that the respondent alongwith his accomplices had taken away the articles, no evidence led -- Prima facie case should be made out and charges cannot be framed on mere assumptions and presumptions or on the mere bald statements of the complainant and the witnesses -- Courts below, therefore, rightly did not frame any charge under Sections 379 and 380 IPC -- Revision dismissed.

(Para 10-12)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211 – Criminal intimidation – Framing of charge -- Charges framed u/s 506 IPC only as the respondent is alleged to have given threats to the petitioner that he would be eliminated -- No other evidence could have been produced -- Only the statement of the petitioner was sufficient -- Charge u/s 506 IPC upheld.

(Para 10-12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3), 401 -- Opportunity of hearing to proposed accused in revision – Requirement of -- Revision against order of dismissal of application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. allowed – Direction by High Court to register FIR against appellant -- Proposed accused were not served notice of the revision proceedings, the order passed by the High Court is in the teeth of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 401 of the Code -- Impugned order set aside, matter remitted back to the High Court to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law.

(Para 6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 13, 18, 20 -- Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (6 of 1908), Section 4, 5 – Default bail -- If on expiry of period of 90 days, from the causing of arrest of the accused concerned, no charge sheet is filed before the jurisdictionally competent court nor when any able extensions of time for the relevant time are granted, accused concerned entitled to claim default bail, from the jurisdictionally competent court.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Sections 13, 18, 20 -- Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (6 of 1908), Section 4, 5 – Default bail -- Jurisdictionally competent court -- Accused arrested on 5.8.2022, instituted an application for default bail before SDJM on 5.11.2022 -- Period of 90 days had then elapsed -- However, the jurisdiction to enter upon a valid trial of UAPA offences became divested from the SDJM, became vested in the Designated Special Court – Application was dismissed with liberty to approach jurisdictionally competent court -- Fresh application for default bail moved before the learned ASJ on 11.11.2022 – In the meantime challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. filed on 7.11.2022 – Default bail declined by Court -- Appeal dismissed -- Impugned order as passed by the learned ASJ upheld.

(Para 6, 13-21)