A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82(1), 482 -- Proclamation – 30 days’ time for appearance – Quashing of proclamation order -- Proclamation was effected on 10.01.2020 for 14.01.2020 – For appearance giving only 04 days’ time to the petitioner, clearly falls short of the statutory period of 30 days prescribed u/s 82 (1) Cr.P.C -- Petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender on 12.03.2020; whereas for the said date, there was no proclamation u/s 82 (1) Cr.P.C. was either ordered or effected – Order dated 12.03.2020 being violative of Section 82 Cr.P.C. set aside.

(Para 8, 9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82(1) – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Procedure of proclamation – Mandatory and inviolable -- Provisions of Section 82 (1) Cr.P.C. provides procedure for appearance of an individual before the Court in the criminal proceedings and thus, regulates the liberty of an individual as such it stems from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and accordingly becomes mandatory and inviolable.

(Para 8)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of complaint -- Loss of cheques – Plea of – Inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- FSL Report proving signatures on cheques -- Two cheques issued to repay debt – Petitioner did not deny the fact of execution of any deed of agreement on payment of such amount – Signature in the deed of agreement and two cheques are found to be similar – FSL report reveals that the signatures of the accused/petitioner in two cheques and in deed of agreement are similar in nature – Disputed question of facts cannot be adjudicated upon in a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

(Para 11)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118, 138, 139 -- Cheque bounced complaint -- Account Closed – Presumption -- Both the cheques were issued by the accused/ petitioner after closing of his account -- It transpires that the petitioner had knowledge regarding closer of his bank account and in spite of that he issued the cheques in favour of the respondent No.2/claimant -- Under such backdrop, it can be assumed that the presumption u/s 139 N.I. Act will come into play at this stage.

(Para 13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 173, 48 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 65A, 65B -- Criminal trial – False implication -- Preservation of CDRs and telecom record -- A case of chance recovery, so preservation or production of the electronic record is not going to affect the source of secret information – As per the notification dated 21.12.2021 issued by Ministry of Communication, Govt. of India, the telecommunication company shall maintain all call details record etc. for at least two years for scrutiny and two years has not lapsed till date of recovery -- Investigating Officer and Telecommunication Company directed to preserve the CDRs of the Police Officials, private persons and petitioner and co-accused with liberty to the petitioner to summon the same at the appropriate stage of trial, for the purpose of putting the same to confront the prosecution witnesses or to produce it in defence evidence -- Admissibility and relevance of said electronic record will be subject to the provisions of Section 65A and Section 65B of Evidence Act.

(Para 7-13)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Vicarious liability -- Vicarious liability is a specific species and assumes critical importance, particularly when there is criminal liability involved and therefore, cannot be taken lightly -- If such an extension of principle of vicarious liability were to remain, it would go against the very grain and texture.

(Para 13)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Officer in Company -- Vicarious liability – Merely holding a designation or office in a company not sufficient for liability under section 141.

(Para 15)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Vicarious liability – Bald averment against petitioner – Some accused dropped -- Bald averments against Accused No. 3-8 being directors of Accused-Company and in-charge of and responsible for the conduct, affairs and business of the company -- No specific averment made that this was so at the time of the commission of the offence -- Signatory of the cheque was also the Managing Director of the Company would be deemed to be in-charge, it was not as if the complainant was remediless -- Considering that Accused No.4 to 8 were dropped by the complainant, there was no reason for the complainant to have continued with proceedings against Accused No.3.

(Para 18)

D. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Incharge of Company – Vicarious liability – Letter head of company – Reliance upon -- Merely the mention of the name of Accused No.3 on the letter head as being the Head of the Group, does not ipso facto or ipso jure make him in-charge of and responsible for the affairs and business of the company at the time the offence was committed.

(Para 19)

E. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Vicarious liability – Non-Executive Director – Non-executive director may be the custodian of governance of the Company but are not involved in the day-to-day affairs of running its business and only monitor executive activities of the Company -- Phraseology used in Section 141 of the Act of being in charge and responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of Company is a reference to an “executive activity” which imports an element of running day-to-day affairs of the Company and would not be extended to a role which is essentially supervisory, policy oriented, of oversight or regulatory i.e. non-executive in character.

(Para 21)

F. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141, 142 -- Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), Section 175 – Companies Act, 2013 (No. 18 of 2013), Section 104, 203 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Non-executive Co-chairman – Managing Director and executive directors are appointed for a company to ensure that all executive decisions – Non Executive Directors are to advice or oversight of the functioning of the company -- Even the role of ‘Chairman’/ ‘Chairperson’ is not typically of an executive nature -- Creeping up an escalating liability to Chairpersons of large conglomerates/ companies for cheques issued in day-to-day affairs of the business of a company would unfairly and unnecessarily expand the provisions of vicarious liability under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act – No prejudice is caused to the complainant as the signatory of the cheque, the Managing Director is already arrayed as accused -- Proceedings quashed qua the petitioner.

(Para 13, 22-26)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – Statutory/ Default bail -- Two extensions granted by the Court not challenged by the petitioner at that stage – Second extension was in presence of accused -- When the chargesheet has been filed within the period of extension, the accused is not entitled to be released on statutory/default bail.

(Para 7)

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), Section 18(a)(i), 27(d) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468, 469 -- Complaint after expiry of limitation period of three years – Quashing of complaint  --- Maximum punishment would be for a period of two years -- 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 came into the hands of the Drugs Inspector on 02.07.2015 and thus, the limitation expired on 01.07.2018 while complaint was filed on 05.02.2019 i.e. approximately after 7 months when period of limitation was over – Complaint and all other consequential proceedings quashed.

(Para 7-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- Police remand beyond 15 days – Permissibility of -- In the case of Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992) 3 SCC 141, Supreme Court observed that there cannot be any police custody beyond 15 days from the date of arrest  -- View taken requires re-consideration -- On 16.04.2021, the ld. Special Judge allowed police custody of the respondent-accused for seven days i.e., up to 22.04.2021, the respondent-accused got himself admitted in the hospital 18.04.2021 and obtained interim bail on 21.04.2021 which came to be extended till 08.12.2021 when his interim bail came to be cancelled by the learned Special Judge by observing that the accused has misused the liberty – By not permitting the CBI to have the police custody interrogation for the remainder period of seven days, it will be giving a premium to an accused who has been successful in frustrating the judicial process -- Appellant-CBI permitted to have the police custody remand of the respondent for a period of four days.

(Para 7-10)

A. Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 3, 4 – Territorial jurisdiction of Court to take cognizance --  Irrespective of where the FIR relating to the scheduled offence was filed and irrespective of which Court took cognizance of the scheduled offence, the question of territorial jurisdiction of a Special Court to take cognizance of a compliant under PMLA should be decided with reference to the place/places where anyone of the activities/processes which constitute the offence under Section 3 took place.

(Para 3, 10)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 -- Transfer of complaint – Lucknow to Kerala -- Lack of jurisdiction of a Court to entertain a complaint can be no ground to order its transfer.

(Para 11)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 -- Transfer of complaint -- Lucknow to Kerala -- 7 out of 10 accused persons are residents of Kerala can hardly be a ground for ordering the transfer of investigation -- Majority of witnesses are also from Kerala/ South India is also no ground to order the transfer of the complaint.

(Para 12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of Criminal proceedings -- Malicious prosecution – On conclusion of the investigation, the accused persons have been charge-sheeted -- Held, Whether the criminal proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this stage -- Same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial -- Order passed by the High Court quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings against the accused set aside.

(Para 4-5.1)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 205, 211, 251, 317 – Summons case – Framing of charge – Personal appearance of accused – Requirement of -- In a summons case when the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offences has to be put to him and asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make – It is not necessary to frame formal charge by the Magistrate – Appearance of the accused can either be personal or through his advocate as is provided u/s 205 of the Code which empowers the Magistrate to dispense with personal attendance of the accused, if he sees reason so to do and permit him to appear by his pleader.

(Para 3-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 294, 323, 342, 354, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) -- Bail by trial court – Cancellation of bail by High Court – Explanation from Trial Judge – Legality of -- Trial Judge granting bail on the ground that the chargesheet had been submitted and that the other accused were on bail was eminently fair and reasonable – Order of the High Court directing that the appellant be arrested immediately and seeking an explanation from the Second Additional Sessions Judge was wholly disproportionate and was not warranted -- Members of the district judiciary cannot be placed in a sense of fear if they were to exercise the jurisdiction lawfully entrusted to them for granting bail in appropriate cases -- Application for cancellation of bail dismissed, bail confirmed.

(Para 9-11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Additional evidence -- Application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. – Who can file -- It is not necessary that the applicant has to be either complainant or prosecution or victim or a listed witness -- The provisions can be invoked by any other person who is able to show that the evidence of witness sought to be examined will be necessary for just decision of the case.

(Para 27)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 65-B – Certificate u/s 65-B of Evidence Act – Competent witness -- Certificate u/s 65-B and proving of the same, certainly goes to the root of the matter and therefore, the only person who is duly authorised regarding the same can be a competent witness in this regard.

(Para 19)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 153-A, 295-A, 298, 323, 406 and 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 --  Forcible conversion of religion -- Third petition – Regular bail --  Petitioner in jail for more than 1 year and 4 months -- 16 out of 34 witnesses have been examined -- Petitioner not involved in any other case except for one more FIR which was lodged on the next day pertaining to the similar kind of allegations – Court deemed it fit and proper to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 34, 35)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 153-A, 295-A, 342, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Forcible conversion of religion -- Third bail petition – Regular bail -- Incarceration for more than 1 year and 5 months -- 8 out of 31 witnesses examined -- Petitioner not involved in any other case except for one more FIR which was lodged one day prior to the present case pertaining to the similar kind of allegations -- Court deemed it fit and proper to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 43)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125, 407 -- Transfer of petition – Maintenance petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. – Rewari to Jhajjar – Four more cases between the parties pending at District Court Jhajjar – It would be in the interest of justice and fitness of things, if petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C pending before District Court Rewari is transferred to District Court, Jhajjar – Petition allowed.

(Para 6-9)

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), Section 7 – Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988, Clause 3, 7 -- Acquittal -- Unauthorised possession of gas cylinders -- Action taken by sub-Inspector of the Police who, as per the Government Order, is not authorised -- It is a settled law that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all -- Other methods are necessarily forbidden – Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence of the appellants u/s 7 of the Act set aside.

(Para 14-17)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7 -- Corruption case – Acquittal – Demand of illegal gratification – Recovery of money -- Complainant as well as shadow witness turned hostile -- No evidence produced on record to prove the demand of illegal gratification -- PW-8 is only a witness who stated that he had recovered the money from the appellant -- Conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be legally sustained -- Appeal allowed, impugned order passed by the High Court and that of the Trial Court are set aside -- Appellant acquitted.

(Para 11-13)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Dishonour of cheques -- Demand notice -- Three cheques for an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- -- Legal notice to pay the cheque amount and in case of legal action, to bear the entire cost of the proceeding, interest on the amount besides legal fee – It is not a case that the opposite party demanded an amount more than the cheque amount of Rs.14,00,000/- -- Impugned notice cannot be said to be not in conformity with law.

(Para 4-7)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Dishonour of cheques -- Demand notice with additional claim – Legality of -- Defect in notice cannot invalidate the proceeding when the demand is only for the cheque amount with additional claim towards the miscellaneous expenses.

(Para 8)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 -- Abetment of suicide – Mens rea -- Essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide -- Insulting the deceased by using abusive language or maltreatment will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide -- To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of the suicide is imperative -- Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against the indictment -- Mens rea to commit the offence is a sine qua non to convict a person under Section 306 IPC.

(Para 9-12)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 -- Abetment of suicide – Acquittal -- Simply because of the fact that the wife (deceased) committed suicide in matrimonial home, itself does not make her in-laws and husband liable for harassment and abetment to commit suicide -- No concrete or conclusive evidence to prove their complicity in the commission of the crime -- Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained – Acquittal affirmed.

(Para 15, 16)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 34, 377, 498A, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Matrimonial dispute – Unnatural offence – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Contesting parties have amicably resolved their issue, thus, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings -- There appears to be no chance of conviction, the continuance of the proceedings would just waste valuable judicial time and it is well-known fact that courts are already overburdened – Petition allowed, FIR and consequential proceedings quashed.

(Para 6-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320(5), 374, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B, 411 -- Conviction u/s 379-B, 411 IPC -- Setting aside of Judgment of conviction and sentence in appeal – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Inherent power u/s 482 of Cr.P.C – Exercise of -- Court invokes the inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC and the appellate jurisdiction, quashes the FIR and all subsequent proceedings and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence qua the appellant(s) and the accused/appellant acquitted.

(para 1-3,13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A, 376(2)(N) – Regular bail – Cancellation of bail – Earlier bail u/ss 363, 366-A IPC – Later Section 376(2)(N) IPC added -- Section 376(2)(N) of IPC was not in the picture at the time of consideration of bail – Held, simply because the offence u/s 376(2)(N) of IPC has been added is no ground to cancel the bail -- Petition dismissed -- State is at liberty to take the requisite action if so required in accordance with law.

(Para 1, 2, 5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 437(5), 439(2) – Bail -- Addition of offence – Arrest of accused -- Addition of a serious offence can be a circumstance where a Court can direct that the accused be arrested and committed to custody -- Recourse available to an accused is to surrender and apply afresh for bail in respect of the newly added offences -- Investigating agency is also entitled to move the Court for seeking the custody of the accused by invoking the provisions of 437(5) and 439(2) Cr.P.C. -- Court that may have released the accused on bail or the Appellate Court/superior Court in exercise of special powers conferred on it, can direct a person who has been released on bail earlier, to be arrested and taken into custody.

(Para 20)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 354, 354-B and 506 (Section 376 added later) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 437(5), 439(2) – Anticipatory bail – Rape -- High Court granted anticipatory bail having been swayed by the “star variations in the narration of the prosecutrix” implying thereby that what was originally recorded in the FIR, did not make out an offence of rape, as defined in Section 375 IPC, which is an erroneous assumption – Prosecutrix was not afforded a hearing, no doubt, the State was present and was represented in the said proceedings, but the right of the prosecutrix could not have been whittled down for this reason alone -- Orders granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 2/accused quashed and set aside.

(Para 22-26)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195 – Private complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C – Maintainability of -- The Court which is seized of a proceeding alone would file a complaint in writing himself or may authorize someone on his behalf to file the said complaint -- A private complaint at the instance of a party to a lis is not maintainable -- No fault with the impugned judgment discharging the respondent/accused -- However, the complainant/ appellant would be at liberty to move an appropriate application u/s 195 Cr.P.C. in each of the judicial proceedings either pending or culminated -- Concerned Court shall consider condoning the delay in initiation of proceedings sympathetically.

(Para 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 –Summoning as additional accused -- Cheating – Appellant once supplied a copy of the statement of account to the complainant which was either dim or mis-printed -- Based on this material, opinion cannot be formed that he was in connivance with the accused who allegedly indulged in cheating the complainant by fraudulent withdrawal from his account -- He is not authorized either to approve withdrawal or to deal with the account of the complainant -- Application filed by the prosecution for summoning the appellant as an additional accused is dismissed.

(Para 11)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 149 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 134 -- Murder – Unlawful assembly – Single witness/ Brother of deceased/ Interested witness – Testimony of – Reliability of -- Conviction to 8 accused – Some witnesses become hostile -- PW-1/ real brother of deceased unrefutedly reveals all the accused hiding in bushes at the spot -- This witness, despite being cross-examined extensively, is consistent in his testimony to the effect that the accused caught hold of the deceased and inflicted serious injuries upon his person -- Though, the witness is not clear as to which one of the accused had assaulted the deceased after he fell down, but then he is categorical with regard to the role played by each one of them -- Merely because no recovery was made from anyone apart from accused Nos.2 and 4 would not mean that others were not present at the scene of the crime; simply because a number of witnesses had turned hostile, does not on its own give a ground to reject the evidence of PW-1; and that PW-1 being the brother of the deceased and therefore, is an interested as well a chance witness, are untenable submissions – Appeals against conviction of accused dismissed.

(Para 1, 12, 17, 21-27)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 – Drafting of complaint by Advocate – Effect of -- Complaint was alleged to have been drafted by an advocate (PW-24), and not by  the petitioner with the help of the police personnel -- Does it cast doubt on the prosecution case? In Court’s view, none.

(Para 22)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintenance under DV Act – Refusal and neglect -- Domestic violence is sine qua non for the reliefs to be granted to the aggrieved person under the D.V. Act -- Ld. ASJ affirmed the finding of the ld. JMIC for non-commission of domestic violence, but held that the husband refused and neglected to maintain the respondent/ wife and granted her the maintenance -- Considering the concept of refusal and neglect and granting the maintenance to wife in D.V. Act case is out of jurisdiction and exaggeration, order passed by the ld. ASJ quashed and set aside.

(Para 4, 9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Legal notice -- Service of -- Postal authorities made several attempts to serve legal notice on the accused on several days, as the door was locked it was returned -- Complainant also sent a legal notice under certificate of posting -- If the registered notice was sent to the correct address of the accused with proper postage and when the accused was not available at his house without any instructions to the inmates, it can be taken as a proper service.

(Para 19)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Quashing of complaint against partner/ wife – Vicarious liability – Partnership firm -- Cheque from personal account of husband -- Petitioner is not a signatory to the cheque and the said cheque was issued on personal account of accused No.1/ husband – Though the petitioner is a partner in the partnership firm and amounts were taken from the finance firm, it would not be proper for the complainant to prosecute the petitioner, who is not a signatory to the said cheque – Petitioner is not vicariously liable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act -- Petition allowed.

(Para 3-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A of IPC – Surrender and bail – Effect of -- Petitioner was declared proclaimed person, however, surrendered before the Trial Court and after noticing that he had not appeared earlier and since the offence in question is bailable, he was admitted to regular bail -- Later on, FIR u/s 174-A IPC was registered against the petitioner on the basis of the order declaring him proclaimed person -- FIR and all the consequent proceedings arising out of the same quashed. Rahul Dureja’s case, 2022(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 248 relied.

(Para 2-5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 102 – Seizure of property -- Police officer can seize any property, which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of commission of any offence.

(Para 15)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 102 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Cheating -- Seizure of Bank account -- Petitioner/ accused received money from complainant and deposited the same in Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society and in the Post Office -- Nowhere alleges that the bank accounts of petitioner/ accused contains property received from complainant or relevant accounts were used for transaction at the time of commission of alleged offence of cheating so as to create suspicion of commission of offence through these bank accounts -- Not a case that Bank Accounts of accused is suspected for depositing/withdrawing or operating or transacting the stolen property – Held, necessary ingredient, empowering the Investigating Officer to seize the Bank Accounts of petitioner are missing and thus seizure/freezing of Bank Accounts of the petitioner is not sustainable.

(Para 16)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 102 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Cheating -- Seizure of Bank account -- Instigating Agency submitted cancellation report but Law Officer raised certain objections but till date investigation has no progress -- Nothing to point out that how de-freezing of the account shall come in the way of Investigating Agency in investigating and concluding the investigation -- Pendency of investigation, that too for the last three years, is also not permissible under law for infinite period – Petitioner held entitle for de-freezing of her accounts.

(Para 17-19)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 251 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Substance of accusation – Personal appearance of accused – Requirement of -- Since the petitioner/ accused being represented by a duly authorized pleader, his duly authorized pleader can be examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C. -- Personal appearance of the petitioner/ accused at the stage of Section 251 Cr.P.C. examination is not required.

(Para 9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 397 -- Revision against conviction – Maintainability of -- Judgment and order passed is appealable before the court of the Session Judge or Additional Session Judge, thereafter, if aggrieved, the party may move the High Court on an application for revision u/s 397 Cr.P.C. -- Petitioner has forgo one forum and has directly approached this Court which is not proper -- Petition is deemed not maintainable -- Petitioner may approach the competent court and considering the fact that the issues raised deserved to be heard on merits, the time period consumed while pursuing the matter before High Court condoned.

(Para 16-21)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 24, 27 -- Extra-judicial confession – Recovery memorandum – Non-preparation of – Acquittal of accused -- Trial court found that the evidence of PWs 10 to 12 before whom confession was made were contradictory to each other -- Conviction can be based on extra-judicial confession, but in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence – Trial court disbelieved the recovery of clothes and weapon on two grounds -- Firstly, that there was no memorandum statement of the accused as required u/s 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and secondly, the recovery of the knife was from an open place accessible to one and all –View taken by the trial court could not be said to be either perverse or illegal/impossible to warrant interference -- High Court has grossly erred in interfering with the well-reasoned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court -- Appeal allowed, impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court convicting the appellant set aside – Acquittal by Trial Court, affirmed.

(Para 12-22)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Cheque by Company – Vicarious liability of person responsible – Pleadings -- In order to make a person vicariously liable for an offence committed by company u/s 138 of the NI Act, the first and foremost pre-condition is that the said person should either be a signatory of the cheque or should be holding a position in the company and should also be responsible for the conduct of the business of the company while holding such designation -- Complainant also has to plead the exact role and the manner by which the said person is alleged to be responsible for the commission of the alleged offence.

(Para 12-14)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheques by Partnership Firm – Quashing of complaint -- Petitioner is not an authorised signatory -- Cheques were handed over by other partner -- Only allegation against the petitioner is that she had participated in the negotiations along with other partner and was also responsible for conduct of the business and accused company was working through the petitioner -- It is, however, not mentioned that in what capacity, the petitioner was working -- Petitioner is the wife of other partner in the accused firm -- On the date when the alleged offence was committed, the petitioner was not a partner – Holding a Trial against the petitioner u/s 138 read with Section 141, is utmost abuse of the process of law and the Ld. Trial Court has passed the summoning order without any application of mind – Impugned order and complaint in relation to the petitioner is quashed.

(Para 16-23)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing – Inherent power of High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C -- High Court is not to conduct a mini trial by considering the defence of the accused or holding an inquiry into the merits of the matter -- However, if, on the face of the documents which are beyond suspicion or doubt, the accusations against the petitioner are found to be frivolous, in order to prevent the injustice and abuse of the process of law, it is incumbent that appropriate relief is granted by exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. -- Where ingredients of an offence are lacking against an accused, it is the duty of the Court to discharge such accused.

(Para 20-22)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- Petitioner/ husband working with Indian Army as Lieutenant Colonel which is a very high ranking position -- Gross salary of the petitioner is Rs. 1.98 lakh and as per petitioner, he is getting carry home salary Rs. 66,000/- as he is making payment towards home loan and car loan – Nowadays, the cost of living is very high -- Family Court, allowed maintenance of Rs. 55,000/- per month to respondents i.e. Rs. 25,000/- to respondent No. 1-wife and Rs. 15,000/- per month each to respondents No. 2 and 3-minor daughters of the petitioner -- No infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference – Petition dismissed.

(Para 1, 5-7)

A. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005),  Section 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 31 – Proceedings under DV Act – Nature of -- Proceeding u/s 12 of the DV Act is not an offence coming within the purview of Section 31 of the said Act - Ld. Magistrate(s) dealing with cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, Act, 2005 would take note that proceedings initiated u/s 12 seeking reliefs u/s 18 to 23 are civil in nature.

(Para 19, 31)

B. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005),  Section 12, 13 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(d), 200, 202, 204 -- Proceedings under DV Act – Nature of -- Warrant against respondent -- Application u/s 12 of the DV Act is not a ‘complaint’ as defined u/s 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., but an ‘application’ and as such, proceedings u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and other relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. are not to be followed -- On an application u/s 12 being filed, the Magistrate has to cause issue of Notice u/s 13 and to call for response from the respondent -- Action of the learned Magistrate in the issuance of a warrant against the petitioner/respondent is also uncalled for.

(Para 19-21)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 34 -- Attempt to murder -- Common intention -- Without there being any punishment to the main accused, who otherwise is main assailant, his accomplish cannot be burdened in isolation with the punishment of imprisonment -- Applying the principle of parity, appellant cannot be put at disparity, especially, considering the act/role done by main accused.

(Para 13)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 34 – Attempt to murder -- Common intention -- There is a serious doubt of sharing of common intention by the appellant with main accused -- No material available on record to hold that appellant was already having knowledge that main accused is keeping knife in his pocket, that too for the purpose of causing murder of the injured (PW1) – Thus, for the act done by main accused, without there being a sound evidence of prior knowledge,  appellant should not be held guilty.

(Para 14)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Attempt to murder -- Common intention -- Appellant charged u/s 307 r/w 34 of IPC -- Prosecution failed to put any material or the evidence while recording statement of the appellant u/s 313 Cr.P.C. referring therein the evidence regarding sharing of common intention by the appellant and then making attempt to cause murder -- Appellant acquitted of charges.

(Para 15)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 302, 506 – Murder -- Appeal against acquittal -- Trial Court acquitting all the respondents/ accused holding that none of the eyewitnesses supported the case of the prosecution – In appeal High Court found that acquittal by Trial Court  was based on proper appreciation of evidence and facts – Held, in cases where a reversal of acquittal is sought, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, on grounds of it surviving the rigours of a full trial, is strengthened and stands fortified -- An additional layer of protection is granted to an accused -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 6, 11,12)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 3, 4, 45 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Money laundering – Anticipatory bail -- Rigour of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall be applicable even with respect to the application u/s 438 Cr.PC.

(Para 7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173(8) -- Further investigation/ Re-investigation/ De novo investigation after chargesheet and framing of charges – Power of -- Held, to do the complete justice and in furtherance of fair investigation and fair trial, the constitutional courts may order further investigation / re-investigation / de novo investigation even after the charge sheet is filed and the charges are framed.

(Para 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173(8) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 365, 143, 144, 147, 149, 324, 506(2) -- Further investigation after chargesheet and framing of charges -- Allegations in the FIR were very serious including the misuse of powers by the sitting Cabinet Minister/ accused no.13 and of abducting, kidnapping and beating the complainant -- During the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court and pursuant to the various orders passed by the High Court, the State investigating agency were compelled to investigate in the matter and belatedly the accused No. 13 was charge-sheeted -- Even according to the State investigating agency, still the further investigation is required on certain aspects -- Victim has a fundamental right of fair investigation and fair trial -- Direction/ permission given to the State investigating agency to further investigate into the FIR and on what aspects the further investigation shall be caried out is left to the wisdom of the State investigating agency.

(Para 12.1-14)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36-A, 15, 61, 85 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 173 -- NDPS case – Challan without FSL report -- Default bail -- Case under the NDPS Act cannot be established without firstly and most importantly identifying the contraband -- Therefore no Court can possibly take cognizance of an offence under the NDPS Act without an FSL report -- Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 17,18)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- Interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month to wife – Challenge to -- Petitioner is BDS running a private clinic -- Petitioner unable to furnish any evidence disclosing that wife is working and actually earning -- In the absence of any documentary evidence, it is highly improbable to believe that respondent is working and earning to the extent that she is able to maintain herself -- Petitioner is a qualified dental doctor and he is morally, ethically and statutorily duty bound to maintain his wife and daughter -- Amount of maintenance awarded is interim maintenance and petitioner shall get an opportunity to put forth his stand at the time of determination of final maintenance -- Family Court is expected to look into status of the wife especially her financial status prior to passing of final order -- No interference warranted – Petition dismissed.

(Para 3, 7)

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 15, 21B(3), 23(2), 28 -- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 2(b) -- Divorce – Remarriage during pendency of appeal – Civil Contempt -- Section 21B(3) states that the appeal will be disposed expeditiously within a period of three months -- Despite a lapse of 13 years, the appeal has not been decided, though the Act casts upon a duty on the Appellate Court to dispose it off within three months – A spouse cannot be held guilty u/s 15 of the Act without referring to Section 21B(3) of the Act -- Spouse cannot be made to wait for endless period if the Court is not able of deciding the appeal, especially when the same has been admitted -- Contempt petition dismissed.

(Para 21(a)(b)(d)(e), 22)

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 15, 21B(3), 23(2), 28 -- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 2(b) -- Divorce – Remarriage during pendency of appeal – Civil Contempt -- Violation of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act amounts to civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Act -- However, when there is no specific restraint order from remarrying after three months period expired u/s 21B(3) for disposal of the appeal, considering that the respondent waited for 10 years and ultimately decided to move on to secure her future and performed the second marriage, no willful disobedience made out – Contempt petition dismissed.

(Para 21(f), 22)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 494 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 15, 21B(3) -- Divorce – Remarriage during pendency of appeal – Bigamy – Suo-moto quashing of summoning order -- There is no specific restraint order from remarrying after three months period expired under Section 21B(3) for disposal of the appeal – Respondent waited for 10 years and ultimately decided to move on to secure her future and performed the second marriage -- Summoning order u/s 494 IPC observing that respondent-wife has performed the marriage in violation of Section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act not sustainable -- Suo moto power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. exercised, summoning order and subsequent prosecution in pursuance thereto quashed.

(Para 23)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 365, 376, 120B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Rape – Compromise quashing of FIR – Ordinarily FIR u/s 376 of IPC cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise, however, in the present case, prosecutrix is duly wedded wife of one of the petitioners and others are close relatives of her husband – It further appears that FIR was outcome of family discord – Denial of prayer of the petitioners not only would be against the interest of petitioner but also victim and her family members – Further, there appears to be no chance of conviction, thus, the continuance of the proceedings would just waste valuable judicial time and it is well-known fact that courts are already overburdened – Petition allowed, FIR u/s 365, 376 and 120B of IPC and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed qua the petitioner(s).

(Para 5)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Conviction by Trial Court – Appeal dismissed by High Court -- Scope of Appeal in Supreme Court -- Wholesome reappreciation of evidence is not within the scope of appeal.

(Para 13)

B. Evidence law -- Discrepancy in deposition – Effect of -- PW-1, sixty-five years of age, was deposing before the Court from her memory after one year from the incident, such discrepancies would not result in rejection of her testimony altogether.

(Para 16.2)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Medical officers established that the child suffered strangulation with a wound measuring 20 cm in length and 2 cm in breadth around the neck and with thyroid cartilage bone having been fractured -- PW-8/ Doctor opined that if outer end of the saree was twisted and put around the neck and the person was strangled, there was a chance of such a wound -- The saree in question duly recovered from the appellant and was said to be carrying blood stains – In statement u/s 313 CrPC, the appellant has not given any explanation whatsoever and has not made any statement except denying the circumstances put to her -- Victim child was last seen alive with the appellant only; she was required to explain the circumstances leading to the demise of the child -- Burden of Section 106 of the Evidence Act operates heavily against the appellant – No case for interference with the concurrent findings of fact is made out – Conviction and sentencing of the appellant under Section 302 IPC cannot be faulted.

(Para 17-22)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder – Conviction by Trial Court – Appeal -- Suspension of sentence --  Applicants/ appellants have undergone custody of 05 years 08 months and 26 days including post-conviction custody period of 03 years, 09 months and 06 days -- There are fairly arguable points on the merits -- Keeping in view the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicants; as well case of the applicants is covered by the ratio of law in Dharam Pal’s case 1999 (4) R.C.R (Criminal) 600 and the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future, Court deemed it appropriate to suspend the remaining sentence of the applicants-appellants during pendency of the appeal.

(Para 8-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 193, 209 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 328, 376, 377 – Rape – Cancellation report -- Cognizance of offence in protest petition u/s 193 Cr.P.C. -- Jurisdiction of Special Court -- Cancellation report filed before the Special Court on oral directions issued by the Judicial Magistrate – Offences exclusively triable by a Special Court – Special Court issued notice to the complainant, whereupon she filed a protest petition and produced preliminary evidence by way of her and her friend’s testimony, and also brought relevant documentary evidence on record -- Cognizance of the offences was taken by the Special Court in exercise of original jurisdiction u/s Section 193 Cr.PC, and the impugned summoning order was passed – Held, Special Court taking cognizance of the offences without any order of committal, has neither caused any prejudice to the petitioner, nor has it resulted in any failure or miscarriage of justice -- It is only an irregularity committed by the Magistrate on the administrative side, in not formally passing the order committing the case -- Such an administrative lapse of procedure cannot divest the Special Court of its original jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences and summon the petitioner -- Impugned order cannot be held to be without jurisdiction.

(Para 11-14)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 – Transfer of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Notwithstanding the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) of the Act of 1881, the power of Supreme Court to transfer criminal cases u/s 406 Cr.P.C. remains intact in relation to offences u/s 138 of the Act of 1881.

(Para 13)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142(2) – Jurisdiction to try complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Section 142(2)(a) of the Act of 1881 vests jurisdiction for initiating proceedings for an offence under Section 138 in the Court where the cheque is delivered for collection, i.e., through an account in the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains an account.

(Para 12)

National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (34 of 2008), Section 21(1) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211, 482 -- Charge – Alteration of charge – Interlocutory order – Maintainability of appeal -- Held, order framing charge or an order altering or refusing to alter the charge passed by the Special Court under the NIA Act, is an interlocutory order not appealable under sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the NIA Act -- Appeal held to be not maintainable -- Appeal converted into proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- Whether or not the appellants have made out a case for invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C can be considered and dealt with by the learned Single Bench.

(Para 11, 12)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 134 -- Non-examination of witnesses – Effect of – It has no material bearing -- It is the discretion of the prosecution to lead as much evidence as is necessary for proving the charge -- It is not the quantity of the witnesses but the quality of witnesses which matters.

(Para 21)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164 -- Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C -- Non-examination of the statement u/s 164 CrPC has no relevance or bearing to the findings and conclusions arrived at by the courts below -- It was for the Investigating Officer to have got the statement u/s 164 CrPC recorded -- If he did not think it necessary in his wisdom, it cannot have any bearing on the testimony of PW-1 and the other material evidence led during trial.

(Para 22)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005) , Section 12 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of summoning u/s 12 of D.V. Act -- Application u/s 12 cannot be equated with complaint or initiation of prosecution and it is not like cognizance of offence or issue of process by Magistrate warranting petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C -- In the absence of any adverse order, it is not appropriate on the part of Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdictional power to quash the complaint which is mere a bundle of allegations -- Petition dismissed,

(Para 7, 8)