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)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 398 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 450, 506 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Additional accused -- Summoning of -- No material was found by the investigating agency against the petitioner and his consequent discharge stood accepted by the trial Court -- Apart from the prosecutrix’s testimony reiterating the earlier allegations, there was no other material before the trial Court making it imperative to exercise the power u/s 319 Cr.P.C -- Besides, procedure u/s 398 Cr.P.C. was also not followed -- Therefore, the impugned order summoning the petitioner as an additional accused becomes unsustainable in law, and set aside -- Petition allowed.

(Para 10, 11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 302, 216, 120-B, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Murder – Suspension of sentence -- Involvement in other cases -- Applicant/ appellant has undergone custody of 11 years 04 months 19 days including post-conviction period of 08 years and 29 days -- Sentence of co-accused suspended, applicant 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 appropriate to suspend the remaining sentence of the applicant/appellant during pendency of the appeal.

(Para 1, 4, 10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 397 – Removal of nuisance – Blockage of public passage -- Petitioners were asked to vacate the passage within the period of 20 days by SDM, it was conditional order -- Petitioners did not approach the SDM u/s 137 or 138 of the Cr.P.C. and straightway filed revision – Held, petition deserves to be dismissed as petitioners did not avail remedy of approaching the SDM.

(Para 16)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118, 138, 139 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Acquittal of accused -- Legal enforceable liability -- No direct transaction between the complainant and the accused-petitioner -- Entire story runs around the mother of the complainant, who is a vital witness, but she has not been produced and examined as a witness before the trial Court -- During obtaining loan from the bank, involvement of a third party witness was spoken by the complainant, but said person has not been examined as witness – Held, disputed question of facts and crucial persons like mother of the complainant and third party witness not being examined, conviction based on sole deposition of PW-1, the complainant, cannot be appreciated -- Complainant failed to establish "legally enforceable debt" -- Revision allowed, impugned judgment and order of sentence quashed.

(Para 8, 9)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – POCSO – Regular bail -- Keeping in mind petitioner is in custody since 20.09.2022 and he is 63 years old man; police report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C. stands filed and charges stand framed; Out of 15 prosecution witnesses till date no witness been examined, thus, there is abysmally low possibility of conclusion of trial in near future; accused in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India has right to defend himself and put forth his stand which cannot be possible while in custody; petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case; prosecution has not led any convincing/plausible documentary or oral evidence indicating possibility of petitioner being flee from justice or tempering the evidences or winning over/threatening the witnesses. Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18-C, 29, 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS case – Commercial Quantity -- Regular bail – Petitioner in custody for the last 1 year, 6 months and 3 days; he is a first offender; though charges were framed on 03.01.2022 but only 2 out of 15 prosecution witnesses have yet been examined, the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial, thus the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed -- Petition allowed.

(Para 6, 7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Cheque bounce case – Quashing of complaint and summoning order – Cheque was issued by brother of petitioner no.2 -- Said cheque was not issued by him as an authorized signatory of the petitioner-firm -- Petitioners admittedly are neither signatory to the cheque in question, nor was it drawn from their bank account -- Petitioners cannot be prosecuted for an offence u/s 138 of the NI Act -- Even if the loan amount had been deposited in the bank account of petitioner No.2, it would still not be sufficient enough ground to fasten his liability u/s 138 of the NI Act – Petition allowed, complaint and summoning order quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 6,7)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003),  Section 3, 44, 45 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 403, 406, 418, 420 – Constitution of India, Article 32 -- Summoning of accused – Lack of territorial jurisdiction – Writ jurisdiction -- Contention that offence punishable u/s 44(1) of PMLA shall be triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed – Held, issue of territorial jurisdiction cannot be decided in a writ petition, especially when there is a serious factual dispute about the place/places of commission of the offence -- An answer to the same would depend upon evidence as to the places where any one or more of the processes or activities mentioned in Section 3 were carried out -- Liberty given to the petitioner to raise the issue of territorial jurisdiction before the Trial Court – Petition dismissed.

(Para 11, 12, 46)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311, 313, 482 – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 12 -- Cheque bounce case – Handwriting expert – Closure of defence evidence -- Delay substantially attributable to the procedural formalities within the office of State Legal Services Authority for seeking production of handwriting expert – Even impugned orders shall cause serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner, amounting to denial of fair trial -- Two effective opportunities granted -- State Legal Services Authority requested to take decision for the purpose of granting necessary financial assistance at the earliest so that the petitioner be able to avail her chance to defend herself.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 353, 186, 506, 341, 323, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190, 195 – Quashing of FIR u/s 186 IPC -- Bar provided u/s 195 read with Section 190 Cr.P.C. is a condition requisite for initiation of proceedings and cognizance of offence punishable u/s 172 to 188 IPC both inclusive cannot be taken except on the complaint in writing by the person as prescribed u/s 195 Cr.P.C – Addition of other offences cannot have an effect of diluting bar as contained in Section 195 qua offence punishable u/s 186 IPC – Prosecution of the petitioners u/s 186 IPC cannot be sustained -- However, qua rest of the offences u/s Sections 341, 353, 332, 506, 34 IPC, the proceedings ordered to continue.

(Para 8-10)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357 -- Haryana Victims Compensation Scheme, 2013 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860)Section 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3, 4 -- Compensation to rape victim under repealed scheme – Writ jurisdiction -- Victim cannot be denied benefit merely due to an act of oversight by the Court -- Act of Court should not prejudice her claim to just compensation -- Victim being a minor and 10 years of age, the Court is the supreme guardian of her best interests as parens patriae -- Hence, the deprivation is now being undone in exercise of the power of prerogative writ -- Sending of the petitioner to avail alternative remedy of appeal would be an exercise in futility as the authorities under the scheme cannot award compensation under a repealed scheme – Petition allowed, respondent-District Legal Services Authority directed to award a total compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- as per the Haryana Victim Compensation Scheme, 2013 -- Amount of Rs.4,00,000/- already disbursed be adjusted from the amount above.

(Para 14-16)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Cheque bounce case – Compounding after conviction -- Quashing of conviction and sentence after backout from compromise – In revision double of the cheque amount was accepted by the complainant in terms of a settlement and it was agreed that an application u/s 147 of the N.I. Act for compounding of the offences shall be moved -- However, complainant reneged from the compromise -- Not only does the complainant choose not to appear but his counsel too has chosen not to appear in Court despite this matter having been adjourned on two earlier occasions -- This conduct is reprehensible to say the least – Conviction and order of sentence and all proceedings against the petitioner quashed.

(Para 8-15)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 307, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 27 – Additional accused – Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. -- Only allegation against respondent No.2 is that he along with other co-accused had run towards complainant and the deceased -- Another attribution to him is that he had thrown sabbal towards the complainant, which had crossed over his head -- No injury is attributed to him – Although in the FIR as well as statement during testimony complainant had named respondent no. 2 to be present at the time of crime but there is no attribution of injury to him -- Evidence on record is not of such a nature that it can be said to be such nature that it will reflect a case of above prima facie material -- Parameters as laid down in Harjit Singh's case are not fulfilled as observed by the learned Sessions Judge -- No merit in the revision, dismissed.

(Para 2-4, 21, 22)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 146, 147 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 482 -- Rioting – Details in FIR – Requirement of -- Quashing of FIR -- In order to attract the provision of Section 146 or 147, basic ingredients of these offences which are force/ violence/ Criminal force/ resistance have to be explicit from the description of events in the FIR, so as to prima facie constitute the offence -- Neither, violence or any kind of use of force/ resistance, on part of the protesting persons, has been alleged even in FIR, nor has it been shown that in what manner any force/ Criminal force/ resistance was used by the accused persons -- FIR quashed.

(Para 9, 18)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 147, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 482 -- Rioting – Unlawful assembly -- Details in FIR – Requirement of -- Quashing of FIR -- Mere averment to the effect that accused blocked the road will not suffice to construe the use of force or violence as the same is required to be portrayed from the description of events in FIR itself – No offence u/s 147 and 149 of the IPC is made out there being no allegation of rioting or creating an unlawful assembly -- FIR quashed.

(Para 9, 18)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- Details of offence in FIR – Requirement of -- FIR cannot be the encyclopedia of all the events of the case, but at the same time, there must be description of basic actions of accused persons from which it can be prime facie construed that alleged offences were committed by accused person.

(Para 9)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 195, 482 -- Disobedience to order promogulated by public servant – Quashing of FIR -- In order to constitute this offence, there must be disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant -- Pre-requisites the Court to take cognizance of this offence only on a complaint filed by the concerned public servant – Neither there was any mention of promulgated order issued by any public servant nor any such complaint was filed at its instance, thus, applicability of Section 188 itself erroneous -- FIR quashed.

(Para 10, 18)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 283 --  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Blockage of road – Quashing of FIR -- No videography or photographs of alleged blockage -- Vague allegations regarding blocking of road, in the absence of any basic minimum details, does not lead to prima facie satisfaction for constituting offence u/s 283 of IPC -- FIR quashed.

(Para 10, 12, 18)

F. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3), 482 -- Constitution of India, Article 19 -- Fundamental right to protest -- Quashing of FIR u/s 482 Cr.P.C – Alternative remedy – Just because the petitioner and other accused persons could avail their remedy before the Trial Court u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C., they could not be left in lurch to face the agony of criminal trial while exercising their fundamental right to protest.

(Para 15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 498A, 427, 504, 506 -- Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Matrimonial dispute -- Compromise quashing of FIR / Charge -- High Court rejected the quashing petition -- Held, in cases of offences relating to matrimonial disputes, if the Court is satisfied that the parties have genuinely settled the disputes amicably, then for the purpose of securing ends of justice, criminal proceedings inter-se parties can be quashed – Petition allowed, criminal proceedings in charge sheet arising out of FIR quashed.

(Para 4-9)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- Jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised with care and caution and sparingly -- To wit, exercise of the said power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of process of law.

(Para 3)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Registration of FIR -- In order to cause registration of an F.I.R. and consequential investigation based on the same the petition filed u/s 156(3), Cr.P.C., must satisfy the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences – If such allegations in the petition are vague and are not specific with respect to the alleged offences it cannot lead to an order for registration of an F.I.R. and investigation on the accusation of commission of the offences alleged.

(Para 10)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420, 120B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – Dispute of civil nature -- Inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- Circumstances, coupled with the fact that in respect of the issue involved is of civil nature, the respondent had already approached the jurisdictional civil court by instituting a civil suit and it is pending -- Attempt on the part of the respondent is to use the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment against the appellants – Case invites invocation of the power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR -- Permitting continuance of the criminal proceedings against the appellants in the aforesaid circumstances would result in abuse of the process of Court and also in miscarriage of justice – FIR and all further proceeding based on the same qua the appellants are quashed and set aside.

(Para 11,12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 279, 304-A, 337 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4 – Conviction for causing death by rash and negligent driving – Protracted trial – Probation -- Accident in October, 1999 -- Criminal proceedings for more than 23 years -- Petitioner not involved in any other criminal case and also not misused the concession of bail -- Petitioner was Government employee, after his conviction, he was dismissed from service -- Instead of sending the petitioner behind bars, ordered to release him on probation to serve ends of justice.

(Para 1,9-12,16)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 41 – Forged Will – Quashing of FIR – Genuineness of Will upheld upto Supreme Court  in probate proceedings – A judgment by a probate Court as per Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act is in rem -- Whether any Court will be able to ignore the findings of the Civil Court regarding genuineness of the Will, answer is no – FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 1, 6, 12-13)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 202 -- Accused residing beyond jurisdiction – Issuance of process -- Enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C – Requirement of – Magistrate did not comply with the provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C., even though the petitioners reside outside the jurisdiction of the court – Non-compliance of Section 202 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate before issuance of process is prima facie an abuse of process of Court/ law – Impugned order set aside/ quashed -- Matter remitted to the learned Magistrate for considering the matter afresh as per the relevant provision of law.

(Para 19-26)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 12(1)(c) – Interim maintenance to wife – Petition for annulment of marriage – Effect of -- Filing of the petition for annulment of marriage in itself cannot be a ground to deny interim maintenance to the respondent-wife.

(Para 3)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Interim maintenance – Look after old parents by husband – Ground of -- Petitioner-husband required to take care of his old parents cannot be a ground to avoid his responsibility towards the respondent-wife.

(Para 3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 447, 506, 120-B, 192, 465, 467, 468, 471 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227 -- Cheating and forgery -- Discharge of accused by Trial court – Revision dismissed by Revisional Court – Challenge to -- Nothing on the record which could prima facie show the involvement of respondents No.2 to 6 or they were beneficiaries of the alleged agreement to sell -- No illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court and Revisional Court.

Para 10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Objection as to maintainability – Ground that Proprietor of the Company made accused, without impleading the Company – Trial Court directed to consider the objection of the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

(Para 2-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 127 – Enhancement of maintenance – From the date of application or order -- Argument that amount of maintenance in terms of Section 127 Cr.P.C. can be enhanced only from the date of passing of order is misplaced -- Respondent indubitably preferred application seeking enhancement in 2014 which remained pending till 2021 and for this long delay of non-adjudication, the respondent cannot be deprived of her substantial right of maintenance.

(Para 10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 407, 482 -- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005) , Section 12 -- Petition u/s 12 of DV Act – Transfer of case – Objection to jurisdiction -- Ground of  -- Objection to the jurisdiction of trial Court to try the application in itself is not a ground to file the petition seeking transfer of the application -- Provisions of Section 407 or 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be resorted to for getting-over the objection to jurisdiction of a particular Court to try the application/case.

(Para 3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 328, 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Rape -- Compromise quashing of FIR – Parties have solemnised marriage -- No useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings -- No chance of conviction, the continuance of the proceedings would just waste valuable judicial time – Petition allowed – FIR and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner(s).

(Para 5-9)

Constitution of India, Article 32 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 161(3), 173, 207 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 74, 76 -- Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005), Section 4(1)(b) -- Public Interest litigation -- Free public access to chargesheets/ final reports u/s 173 of the Cr.P.C. on State websites :

– Conjoint reading of Section 173 Cr.P.C. and Section 207 Cr.P.C. the Investigating Agency is required to furnish the copies of the report along with the relevant documents to be relied upon by the prosecution to the accused and to none others -- It may as such violate the rights of the accused as well as the victim and/or even the investigating agency

-- Chargesheet/ documents along with the chargesheet cannot be said to be public documents u/s 74 of the Evidence Act, reliance placed upon Sections 74 & 76 of the Evidence Act is absolutely misplaced.

-- Copies of the chargesheet and the relevant documents along with the charge-sheet do not fall within Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act -- Under the circumstances also the reliance placed upon Section 4(1)(2) of the RTI Act is also misconceived and misplaced.

Petitioner is not entitled to the relief namely directing all the States to put on their websites the copies of all the chargesheets/challans filed under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.

(Para 1-7)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Joint account of husband-wife – Section 138 of the N.I. Act does not speak about the joint liability -- Apropos unless both the persons are liable to pay debt jointly, they cannot be prosecuted except when they maintained joint account and they both have drawn the cheque duly signed by them if it is dishonoured -- Though the dishonoured cheque was said to be drawn from the joint account of both the accused, it was signed only by A1 and not by the petitioner who is A2 in the complaint before the trial Court -- Hence, the petitioner cannot be proceeded with for the offence u/s 138 of the N.I.Act – Petition allowed, proceedings qua appellant no.2 quashed.

(Para 2, 10, 16-18)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Advance payment cheque – Dishonour of – Legal enforceable liability -- To attract an offence u/s 138, there should be a legally enforceable debt or other liability subsisting on the date of the drawal of the cheque -- If a cheque is issued as an advance payment for purchase of the goods and for any reason purchase order is not carried to its logical conclusion either because of its cancellation or otherwise, and material or goods for which purchase order was placed is not supplied, the cheque cannot be held to have been drawn for an existing debt or liability.

(Para 11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Cheque bounce case – Conditional bail in Appeal subject to deposit 20% amount -- Non-payment of – Anticipatory bail – Maintainability of -- A person released on bail is already in constructive custody of law – Anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Manish Jain’s case 2022(1) SCC(Cri) 676 relied.

(Para 5-7)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Abetment of suicide – Mens rea -- Quarrel with deceased – Spur of moment -- Words uttered in a quarrel or in the spur of a movement if at all cannot be taken to be uttered with the necessary mens rea and would be an outcome of an emotional outburst or a fit of anger -- Same would not amount to abetment.

(Para 10)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Abetment of suicide -- Merely having a dispute with the deceased or making a complaint to the Police against the deceased would not make out a case under Section 306 IPC.

(Para 10)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Abetment of suicide -- Reliance upon suicide note -- Suicide note does not refer to any act on the part of the accused amounting to abetment -- It only says that if something was to happen with the deceased, the accused would be responsible -- Suicide note therefore does not further the case of the prosecution.

(Para 10)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Abetment of suicide -- Author of suicide note – Proof of – FSL asked for admitted document of the deceased so as to compare the writing on the suicide note along with that of the deceased, however, no such writing was dispatched to the FSL for comparison – Brother of the deceased identified the signatures of the deceased on the suicide note which would not be sufficient to affix the authorship of the suicide note.

(Para 10)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Abetment of suicide -- Merely mentioning the names of the accused in the suicide note in the absence of any specific role would not lead to the commission of an offence under Section 306 IPC.

(Para 10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Quashing of Complaint -- Company not impleaded as party – Demand notice to wrong company – Cheque was issued in the capacity of an authorized signatory of BSR Health Ventures Private Limited and was not issued from a personal account -- However, the notice was issued and the complaint was filed against the Director of BSR Super Specialty Hospitals Ltd. – Held, since a wrong notice has been served and a wrong party has been made and further, the Company has also not been arrayed as an accused, the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of law -- Criminal proceedings against the petitioner quashed.

(Para 9, 10)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Cheque by company -- Vicarious liability of officer – Officer,  Non-signatory to cheque -- Pleadings as to role of Officer -- Specific averments must be made in the complaint itself highlighting the role of the said officer as to how he was either responsible for day-to-day affairs and conduct of business of the company or as to how and in what manner the officer was guilty of consent and connivance or negligence in the commission of the offence.

(Para 13)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Cheque by company -- Vicarious liability of Chief Account officer – Officer,  Non-signatory to cheque -- Pleadings as to role of Officer -- Specific averments that, the petitioner persuaded the complainant to enter into the transaction with the Company by showing the financial position of the Company as well as making them believe in the capacity of the same to repay the debts -- Complainant has fulfilled the basic criteria of carving out the role of present petitioner in the complaint, for the commission of offence u/s 138 and 141 of NI Act.

(Para 13, 14)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Cheque by company -- Vicarious liability of Chief Account officer – Company master data – Non-showing of resignation – Effect of -- In Company Master Data, the petitioner was a part of the Company on the date the alleged offence took place and when the complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court – Contentions of the petitioner that he had already resigned from the Company prior to dishonor of cheque – High Court in a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. cannot decide the genuineness of such records -- No case for quashing of complaint -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 15-17)