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)

A. 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 averment that petitioner/ accused 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 – Held, complainant has fulfilled the basic criteria of carving out the role of present petitioner in the complaint, for the commission of offence u/ss 138 and 141 of NI Act, 1881.

(Para 13, 14)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque by company -- Vicarious liability of Chief Account Officer – Resignation by Officer – Contention that petitioner had already resigned from the Company prior to dishonor of cheque and that his resignation was not accepted because of which his name continued to appear on the ROC records – Held, High Court in a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. cannot decide the genuineness of such records and these contentions of the petitioner can be raised and appropriately dealt with during the course of trial -- No case for quashing of complaint -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 14-17)

Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Section 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33, 24 (4) – Insecticides Rules, 1971, Rule 27(5) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of Complaint/ summoning order -- Re-testing at the Central Insecticide Laboratory within a period of 30 days -- Mandatory in nature -- Different accused requested for sending the second part of the sample for re-analysis by the Central Insecticide Laboratory on 25.07.2016 and 01.08.2016 -- Sample was received in the said Laboratory on 25.11.2016 after a gap of more than two months, with no justification of this delay -- Receipt of the sample by Central Insecticide Laboratory was confirmed on 07.03.2017 and then actual analysis was done on 22.03.2017 i.e. after a gap of 273 days -- Unjustified huge delay of 273 days in re-analyzing of the sample, certainly caused prejudice to the petitioner – Use of word 'shall' in Section 24(4) makes it mandatory to conduct the test or analysis by the Central Insecticide Laboratory within 30 days -- Held prosecution launched by the respondent cannot be sustained -- Complaint and the impugned summoning order and all the consequential proceedings quashed.

(Para 8-13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2), 437(5), 439(2) --  Default bail – Cancellation of bail after charge-sheet -- Mere filing of the chargesheet subsequent to a person is released on default bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. cannot be a ground to cancel the bail -- However, on filing of the chargesheet on conclusion of the investigation, if a strong case is made out and on merits, it is found that he has committed a non-bailable offence/crime, on the special reasons/grounds and considering Section 437(5) and Section 439(2) Cr.P.C, over and above other grounds on which the bail to a person, who is released on bail can be cancelled.

(Para 8-10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Chhattisgarh Moneylenders Act, 1934 (13 of 1934), Section 11-H -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 251, 254, 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Challenge to order framing charge -- Contention that demand notice was never served on the petitioner; there is no legally enforceable debt; and the petitioner is under the category of money lender, therefore, the suit is barred under Section 11-H of the Chhattisgarh Money Lenders Act, 1934 – Held, defence taken by the petitioner/ accused may be seen during the trial -- Section 11-H of the Act, does not attract in the case -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 2-7)

Constitution of India, Article 32 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 432, 433-A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 147, 148, 302/149, 307/149 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(2)(5) -- Life imprisonment – Pre-mature release – Prayer declined by State on opinion of Special Judge -- Presiding Officer’s opinions do not contain reasons with regard to the factors to be taken into consideration as laid down in case of Laxman Naskar’s case (2002) 2 SCC 595 – Held, petitioners’ applications for remission required to be reconsidered by the respondent authorities afresh -- Special Judge directed to provide an opinion afresh after taking into consideration the relevant factors as laid down in Laxman Naskar’s case – Thereafter, State shall take a final decision on remission afresh expeditiously not later than one month of receiving the opinion of the Special Judge -- Writ petition allowed.

(Para 7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Dismissed for want of prosecution – Petitioner/ complainant was continuously appearing before the Court, but on 08.08.2022, neither he nor his lawyer were present – Dismissal for want of prosecution should not have been done, instead another opportunity could have been granted to the petitioner for his appearance and the case should have been decided on merits -- Impugned order set-aside, Trial Court directed to proceed with the case after appearance of the complainant and the case shall be decided on merits in accordance with law.

(Para 1-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Regular bail – Condition to deposit of Rs.9,00,000/- in the Court was imposed on the statement of the petitioner – He could not comply with the condition and resultantly continues in custody since 30.06.2016 -- Subsequently he applied for modification/recall of the condition turned down by the High Court – Held, pre-condition of deposit of Rs.9,00,000/- for his release on regular bail, is totally unwarranted and uncalled for and set aside -- Petitioner directed to be released on bail forthwith subject to his furnishing bail bonds.

(Para 1-6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) -- Cancellation of bail -- Parameters of granting and cancellation of bail are totally different -- Bail cannot be cancelled unless and until there is evidence of misuse of bail in the form of commission of similar or identical offence, tampering or destruction of evidences, threatening or winning over of witnesses or there is total non-application of mind -- Bail already granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) -- Cancellation of bail -- A bail once granted cannot be cancelled on the basis of bald allegations of the complainant especially when there is no complaint by prosecuting agency supported by evidence of misuse of bail.

(Para 6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 133, 137, 138 – Encroachment of passage – Denial of -- Section 137 Cr.P.C. reveals that in case the person against whom order was made u/s 133 Cr.P.C. denies the existence of any public right in respect of any way, river, channel etc., then the Magistrate is required to initiate proceedings u/s 138 Cr.P.C. and enquire into the matter -- If there is any reliable evidence in support of denial, Magistrate may even stay proceedings till the matter of existence of the right is decided by the competent Court -- However, if he finds that there is no such evidence, he shall proceed as per Section 138 Cr.P.C. – Magistrate is required to take evidence in the matter as in the summons case -- Procedure as per Sections 137 and 138 Cr.P.C. is required to be followed by the Magistrate only when there is denial of the obstruction in the passage.

(Para 12, 13)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 133 -- Encroachment of passage – Old/ urgent obstruction -- As per the legal position, Section 133 Cr.P.C. is applicable in the urgent conditions but in the matter, when the petitioner appeared before the SDM through his counsel, no such stand was taken by him that obstruction on the passage was old or that he was growing crops on that passage since long time -- He sought time of 15 days to remove the encroachment and so he is now estopped from pleading that obstruction on the passage is quite old.

(Para 16)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 133 – Order u/s 133 Cr.P.C. for removal of encroachment – Civil suit pending to decide rights – Effect of -- Contention that civil suit filed before the Court and so no order u/s 133 Cr.P.C. can continue to exist, has no merit.

(Para 17)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125, 127, 128 – Execution of maintenance u/s 125/ 127 Cr.P.C – Jurisdiction --  Harmonious and beneficial interpretation -- An order of maintenance may be enforceable at the place where the person against whom it is made, the court which passed the order also retains power to execute the order, outside the jurisdiction where the respondent has been residing.

(Para 16, 17)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 204 – Cheque bounce complaint – Cognizance by Magistrate -- Issue of process – Recalling of -- After completion of Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure there is no provision for reverting back and question the taking of cognizance and dismissing the same.

(Para 1, 8, 9, 17)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Cheque bounce complaint – Delay in complaint – Condonation of delay -- Ample power has been given by the legislature by inserting the provisions of Section 142 of the N.I. Act to protect the person who has given money from technicalities -- Proper explanation was given in the petition of complaint supported by medical papers which was overlooked by the Ld. Magistrate – Order passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate set aside/quashed -- Criminal Proceedings in complaint restored -- Petitioner is permitted to file an application for condonation of delay before the trial court and if such an application is filed, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to consider the same on its own merits.

(Para 13-29)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 124A, 153A, 504, 505(1)(b), 505(2) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of FIR – Inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- High Court quashed the criminal proceedings as if the High Court was conducting the mini trial – It is a settled position of law that while exercising powers u/s 482, CrPC, the High Court is not required to conduct the mini trial -- What is required to be considered at that stage is the nature of accusations and allegations in the FIR and whether the averments/allegations in the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of the cognizable offence or not -- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is contrary to the decision in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd’s case, (2020) 10 SCC 180 and the other decisions on the points, is unsustainable -- Impugned judgment order passed by the High Court set aside.

(Para 9, 10, 14)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 124A, 153A, 504, 505(1)(b), 505(2) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of FIR – Inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- FIR lodged on 09.12.2021, immediately, on the very next date, the quashing petition was filed and within a period of four days i.e. 14.12.2021, the impugned judgment and order has been passed and the criminal proceedings quashed -- As per the settled position of law, it is the right conferred upon the Investigating Agency to conduct the investigation and reasonable time should be given to the Investigating Agency to conduct the investigation unless it is found that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any cognizable offence at all or the complaint is barred by any law -- Impugned judgment order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings quashed and set aside.

(Para 11-14)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15, 42, 43 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- NDPS case – Appeal against conviction -- Acquittal of accused – Non-compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act -- Secret information not reduced into writing and not sent to the police station or higher authority -- Evidence clearly shows that the vehicle was not a public conveyance -- Explanation appended to Section 43 of the Act clearly shows that a private vehicle would not come within the expression ‘public place’ -- Held, it was mandatory to comply with the provisions of Section 42 of the Act; there was complete non-compliance of the said requirement of law -- Appeal allowed, impugned judgment and order of sentence set aside.

(Para 12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 391 – Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), Section 18-A, 18-C, 27(b)(ii) -- Additional evidence in appeal -- Power to take additional evidence u/s 391 CrPC is with an object to appropriately decide the appeal by the Appellate Court to secure the ends of justice – Photocopies of the concerned bills relating to purchase of medicines were placed on record of the trial Court but due to oversight accused/appellant failed to tender the original bills in his defence evidence -- Said bills appears to be necessary for the just decision of the case and to secure ends of justice -- Order passed by Ld. ASJ set aside, Court directed to decide the application afresh.

(Para 12-16)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Excise matter – Opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses -- Prosecution witnesses were examined but as per the petitioner, the said fact was unknown to him and therefore, the cross-examination could not be conducted by his counsel -- Held, in the absence of cross-examination, the prosecution evidence would go unrebutted -- No prejudice shall be caused to the prosecution if an opportunity is granted to the petitioner/accused to cross-examine the three witnesses in a time bound manner -- Petition allowed, one more opportunity granted to the petitioner to cross-examine three witnesses -- Pursuant to their cross-examination, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the Trial within 08 weeks.

(Para 12, 13)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(v), (va) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Quashing of complaint/ summoning order under SC ST Act -- Private civil dispute between the parties is converted into criminal proceedings -- From the material on record, no case for the offences u/s 3(1)(v) and (va) of the 1989 Act is made out, even prima facie -- None of the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of Act, 1989 are made out and/ or satisfied -- Initiation of the criminal proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law and Court -- High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure -- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition quashed and set aside -- Criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants, initiated by the respondent/ original complainant including summons issued by the learned Special Court quashed and set aside.

(Para 3-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 53 -- Prisons Act, 1894 (9 of 1894), Section 55 -- Goa Prisons Rules, 2006, Rule 2(11), 335 -- Life imprisonment – Pre-mature release – Parole period -- Whether the period of parole is to be excluded from the period of sentence while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment – Held, for the purpose of considering actual imprisonment, the period of parole is to be excluded.

(Para 8-10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque by Proprietorship firm – Complaint against Proprietor only – Amendment for impleading Proprietorship Firm as party/ accused allowed by Ld. Trial Court – Amendment upheld,  

-- firstly; the very factum of the petitioner not having even raised any objection or challenge to the complaint or the summoning order on the ground, either that petitioner was arraigned in individual capacity or that the proprietorship firm was not arraigned as an accused;

-- secondly, the application for impleading the proprietorship firm as an accused was soon after the summoning order was passed;

-- thirdly, the petitioner does not dispute her signatures on the cheque, as are also discernible therefrom, were on behalf of the proprietorship firm itself, raising the presumption under Sections 118 and 138 NI Act, though rebuttable by preponderance of probabilities;

-- fourthly, curable infirmities, can be cured by filing for amendment at any stage, which in the present case was right at the very outset of the proceedings.

-- Fifthly, and above all, the settled law being that in case of a proprietorship concern, the same would not come within the ambit of Section 141 of NI Act as it is only the sole proprietor, who is liable.

No illegality or perversity in the impugned order, the petition being sans merit, dismissed.

(Para 2, 23, 17-19)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Amendment of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- In the complaint, the date of cheque was mentioned as 22.07.2010 whereas as per the petitioner, the correct date of cheque is 22.07.2012 – If amendment of complaint is not permitted, it may prove fatal to the case of the complainant -- On account of clerical mistake substantial claim of the drawer may be defeated -- An accused cannot be let free just because there is some mistake on the part of complainant -- Mistake in question cannot be called as incurable mistake – Amendment allowed.

(Para 14-16)