A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 --  Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Automatic cancellation of bail -- Whether High Court can impose a condition of automatic cancellation of bail order -- Cancelling of bail order directly affects freedom of a person which affects his fundamental rights -- Reasonable opportunity of hearing is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India – Held, if there is an automatic cancellation of bail order, then valuable right of natural justice is denied to accused -- Such condition could not be made part of the bail order.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 362 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 403 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Automatic cancellation of bail -- Review of order -- Court is barred from reviewing or altering its own order under Section 362 of Cr.P.C./ 403 of B.N.S.S., 2023 -- Both sections are pari materia -- While recalling a judgment Court has to apply its mind and has to look into the facts of the case, therefore, bar u/s 362 of Cr.P.c. or new Section 403 of B.N.S.S., 2023 will be operative, but there are certain exceptions when Court can recall/relook into the judgment and violation of fundamental rights is one of the said exceptions -- If condition of automatic cancellation of bail order is hit by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, then order will be revived and Court can consider the application for modification also.

(Para 7)

A. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), Section 22, 27, 32 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – FIR under Drugs Act -- Quashing of FIR -- Police did not have the powers to register an FIR or even conduct an investigation concerning offences u/s 27 of the 1940 Act -- FIR quashed.

(Para 10-15)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – Cheating -- Deliberate false representation with an intent to deceit, leading to the delivery of property, is an essential requirement to attract mischief of an offence u/s 420 of IPC -- Statements u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. indicates that the petitioners offered injections at inflate prices without a valid licence aiming to deceive them -- However, there are no allegations of delivery or sale of actual property -- Thus, the essential elements to attract an offence under Section 420 of the IPC are missing – FIR quashed.

(Para 7, 15)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(b) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- NDPS Case -- Suspension of sentence -- Recovery of 18.17 grams of heroin – Conviction for 4 years – Appeal against conviction – Appeal raises arguable issues -- The applicant has undergone an actual sentence of 06 months and 10 days and there is no other case registered against him -- Hearing of the appeal is likely to take some time -- Sentence suspended.

(Para 2, 5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174A, 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Withdrawal of complaint -- Quashing of FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Proceedings u/s 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act read with Section 420 IPC have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the aforesaid complaint -- Petition allowed subject to a deposit of Rs.25,000/- as costs -- FIR u/s 174-A IPC and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

(Para 12, 13)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311, 397(2) – Examination of witness u/s 311 Cr.P.C. -- Interlocutory Order – Maintainability of revision -- Order rejecting the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order -- Revision petition is not maintainable against the dismissal order.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311, 397(2) – Examination of witness u/s 311 Cr.P.C. – Locus standi -- Petitioners are neither complainants nor were they cited as witnesses in the original complaint filed by their brother in the year 2012 -- Petitioners were not examined during preliminary, pre-charge, or post-charge evidence stages and therefore, had no locus-standi to file the application u/s 311 Cr.PC.

(Para 8)

A. Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Right to bail – Right to Life and liberty – Restrictions imposed by Statute – Effect on Constitutional Court -- Right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct -- A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed -- In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way.

(Para 32)

B. Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Right to bail – Right to Life and liberty – Restrictions imposed by Statute – Effect on Constitutional Court -- In the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to leError! Hyperlink reference not valid.an in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part -- In the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail -- But it would be very wrong to say that under a particular statute, bail cannot be granted --  It would run  counter to the very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence.

(Para 32)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 216 -- Charge-sheet can be amended/altered at any stage before pronouncement of judgment -- Either prosecution or accused can file application for amendment of charge and in case Court comes to conclusion that charge required to be amended then Court can suo moto amend charge-sheet at any stage before judgment is pronounced.

(Para 6)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 – Criminal breach of trust – Cheating -- Charge-sheet u/s 420 of IPC cannot be framed simultaneously along with offence u/s 406 of IPC.

(Para 7)

A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 1(3), 4, 531 – Procedure in criminal cases after BNSS (w.e.f. 01.07.2024):

I. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 stands repealed w.e.f. 01.07.2024. Ergo; no new/fresh appeal or application or revision or petition can be filed under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on or after 01.07.2024.

II. The provisions of Section 4 and Section 531 of BNSS, 2023 are mandatory in nature as a result whereof any appeal/ application/ revision/ petition/ trial/ inquiry or investigation pending before 01.07.2024 are required to be disposed of, continued, held or made (as the case may be) in accordance with the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In other words; any appeal/ application/ revision/ petition filed on or after 01.07.2024, is required to be filed/ instituted under the provisions of BNSS, 2023.

III. Any appeal/ application/ revision/ petition filed on or after 01.07.2024 under the provisions of Cr.P.C., 1973 is non-maintainable & hence would deserve dismissal/ rejection on this score alone. However, any appeal/ application/ revision/ petition filed upto 30.06.2024 under the provisions of Cr.P.C., 1973 is maintainable in law. To clarify; in case any appeal/ application/ revision/ petition is filed upto 30.06.2024 but there is defect (Registry objections, as referred to in common parlance) and such defect is cured/ removed on or after 01.07.2024, such appeal/ application/ revision/ petition shall be deemed to have been validly filed/ instituted on or after 01.07.2024 and, therefore, would be non- maintainable.

IV. Section 531 of BNSS shall apply to "revision", "petition" as also "petition of complaint" (ordinarily referred to as complaint before Magistrate) with the same vigour as it is statutorily mandated to apply to "appeal/ application/ trial/ inquiry or investigation" in terms of Section 531 of BNSS.

(Para 9)

B. Constitution of India, Article 20 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 1(3), 4, 531 – Procedure in criminal trial – Retrospective or Prospective -- Prohibition under Article 20 pertains to only conviction/ sentence under a law, which has been enacted later on, but not trial thereof -- There is no gainsaying that BNSS is essentially a criminal procedural law whereas BNS provides for substantive criminal law – It is trite law that the presumption against a retrospective construction has no application to enactments which affect only the procedure and practice of the Courts, even where the alteration which the statute makes has been disadvantageous to one of the parties -- No person has a vested right in any course of procedure -- He has only the right of prosecution or defence in the manner prescribed for the time being, by or for the Court in which he sues, and, if an Act of Parliament alters that mode of procedure, he has no other right than to proceed according to the altered mode.

(Para 8.3, 8.4)

C. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528, 531 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 498A – Quashing of FIR/ Report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. -- Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C on 03.07.2024 – Maintainability of -- The Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 stands repealed w.e.f. 01.07.2024 -- Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is non-maintainable, dismissed -- Petitioner shall be at liberty to file an appropriate petition invoking the provisions of BNSS, as and if permissible in law.

(Para 10)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Scope and object of the Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Provision is to enable the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts to arrive at a just decision of the case -- Power is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily -- Such a power is to be exercised, provided that the evidence that is likely to be adduced by the concerned witness is relevant to the issue involved -- Application could not be rejected on the sole ground that the case has been pending since long.

(Para 5)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Re-examination of complainant/ witness – FIR by complainant for same transaction as well -- Complainant’s cross-examination was completed on 21.11.2019 -- However, challan in criminal case was filed in year 2022 – It is the case of the petitioner that certain new facts having bearing on the present case, surfaced in the said report submitted by the police u/s 173 Cr.P.C and it is necessary to put the said new facts to the complainant in his cross examination -- Application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. allowed subject to cost of Rs.5,000/-.

(Para 3, 6, 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 323 -- Committal of case to Session Court – Application by prosecution seeking FSL report before Sessions Court -- Sessions court fell in grave error in observing that the application ought to have been filed before the learned Magistrate at the time of the committal of the trial -- To deny the application without seeking the report would result in a miscarriage of justice -- Application allowed.

(Para 8-12)

Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910 (IV of 1910), Section 72 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 457 – Excise matter – Confiscation proceedings before Collector – Power of Judicial Magistrate -- If a vehicle is seized under the provisions of the Excise Act and confiscation proceedings in respect thereof are going on before the Collector, a Judicial Magistrate has got no jurisdiction to release the aforesaid vehicle.

(Para 21-24)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148A -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Appeal against conviction – Suspension of sentence – Condition to deposit 20% of compensation amount -- Appellate Court was required to consider whether the case falls under exception or not – Impugned order set aside, Ld. Appellate Court directed to pass the order afresh, after granting opportunity to the parties with regard to, whether the petitioner is able to make out a ground that his case falls under exceptional category which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount or whether the petitioner is liable to pay less amount of compensation.

(Para 6-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 22, 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case – Regular bail – Commercial quantity – Bail in such cases may not be granted, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail -- But, denial of bail does not give unfettered liberty to the prosecution to keep a person in custody without conducting a trial -- Applicant is in custody for more than a year -- In between, for more than six months, no progress was made in the case, the trial has yet not concluded -- Bail allowed.

(Para 5-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190, 200, 482 -- Complaint against doctor – Death by rash and negligent act of doctor -- Cognizance by Magistrate – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Opinion of another doctor – Requirement of -- A private complaint may not be entertained unless the complainant has produced prima facie evidence in the form of credible opinion given by another doctor to support the charge of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused doctor -- To allow the proceeding to continue, will amount to an abuse of the process of law -- Entire criminal proceeding u/s 304-A of IPC quashed.

(Para 10,11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Compromise – Acquittal --  Entire amount of compensation agreed to be paid to the respondent-complainant and respondent has no objection in compounding the offence -- No impediment in accepting the prayer for compounding of offence while exercising power u/s 147 of the Act even after recording of conviction by the courts below – Matter compounded, impugned judgments of conviction and sentence quashed and set aside. Damodar S. Prabhu’s case (2010) 5 SCC 663 = (2010) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15231 relied.

(Para 9-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 506, 148, 149, 336 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 27 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 438 – Anticipatory bail -- Attempt to murder – Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. -- Petitioners were found innocent during investigation -- Petition allowed, petitioners directed to appear before the trial Court on or before the date already fixed thereat -- On their such appearance, they shall be admitted to bail by the Court concerned on usual terms and conditions -- In the meantime, in case, petitioners are sought to be arrested, they shall be admitted to interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.

(Para 6-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – NDPS Case – Jump of bail – Proclaimed offender -- Due to communication gap with his counsel, the petitioner could not appear in Court on 6.10.2023 and his bailable warrants were issued for 13.12.2023 -- On 13.12.2023 he was out of station due to some household work -- Resultantly, his bail and surety bonds were cancelled and warrants of arrest were issued and thereafter, proclamation was issued and he was declared proclaimed offender – Petitioner undertakes that he is ready and willing to surrender before the trial Court – Order declaring proclaimed offender set aside subject to surrendering of the petitioner within 7 days with cost of Rs.10,000/-

(Para 2-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 148, 149, 302, 506, 285 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Murder -- Anticipatory bail – Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. -- Complainant as party -- No force in contention of State so as to implead the complainant as a party -- Petitioner not named in the FIR to be amongst the assailants and he has been named for the first time in supplementary statement of the complainant – On surrender by petitioner, the Trial court directed to release him on bail.

(Para 6-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 188, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A – Cruelty – Quashing of police report -- Entire allegations, which would attract offences u/s 498A of IPC alleged to be committed by the 1st accused is outside India -- Matter would come with the ambit of Section 188 of Cr.P.C -- Therefore, proceedings without obtaining prior sanction as contemplated u/s 188 Cr.P.C. is vitiated -- Petition allowed, criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 1, 12, 13)

Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (XII of 1989), Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Rape – Quashing of FIR -- Petitioner continued to indulge in sexual relationship with prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage for the last 3-4 years -- She lodged the FIR only because the petitioner had betrayed and left her -- Prosecutrix was 26 years of age when her statement u/s 164 Cr. P. C. was recorded -- She is a grown-up and mature lady capable of understanding the consequences of the acts in which she had indulged with the petitioner – No offence u/s 376 IPC is made out against the petitioner and if the investigation in the FIR impugned is allowed to be continued, it would amount to abuse of process of law -- FIR quashed.

(Para 10-18)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 24(8), 225, 397, 301, 401 -- Charges framed by trial court – Challenged in revision – Complainant/ victim right to be impleaded as party -- Held, while the victim/ complainant has a right to be heard in the revision proceedings, such right does not upscale itself to a right to be impleaded in the said criminal revision -- Victim/complainant may be heard, and such hearing shall be regulated by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.

(Para 73)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 156(3), 177, 190 -- Registration of FIR – Territorial jurisdiction -- Power of Magistrate – A Magistrate can order investigation of only those cases which the Court has jurisdiction to enquire into and try under Chapter XV of J&K CrPC which is applicable to the case -- Section 177 of CrPC which falls in Chapter XV provides that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed.

(Para 10)

B. Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (XII of 1989), Section 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 188, 561A -- Quashing of FIR -- Territorial jurisdiction -- A proposal for insurance policy from the travel agent of deceased  at Delhi and it was forwarded to the authorised agent of petitioner/ company stationed at Delhi -- Travel insurance was to take effect from Delhi as the deceased had booked himself from Delhi to Frankfurt -- Death of the deceased in Switzerland -- Thus, neither any event nor its consequence has taken place within the territorial limits of either CJM or within the territorial limits of Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu -- Neither the petitioner-company, nor respondent No.2 is a State subject -- They are not even registered as companies within the jurisdiction of erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir -- Therefore, the provisions contained in Section 4 of RPC and Section 188 of CrPC would not be attracted -- Order of Ld. CJM, Jammu, directing the SHO to register the impugned FIR and investigate the same is, without jurisdiction – FIR quashed.

(Para 11-13, 21)

C. Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (XII of 1989), Section 304 (II), 420, 409, 467, 468 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 561A -- Medical insurance policy – Non-honour of medi-claim – FIR for cheating, forgery & culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Quashing of FIR -- Transaction between the insurer and the insured is purely contractual in nature, if any of the parties to this contract defaults in honouring its commitment, it cannot form a basis for launching a criminal prosecution -- Merely because, on the basis of non-payment of compensation under the insurance policy to the complainant, her son breathed his last, it cannot be stated that the petitioner-company was, in any manner, responsible for his death and it cannot be prosecuted for a serious offence like culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Petitioner/ company cannot be held responsible for forgery of the cancellation letter purported to have been issued by deceased through his agent – FIR quashed.

(Para 14-21)

Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (XII of 1989), Sections 420, 406, 452, 465, 467, 506 and 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 561A – Quashing of FIR -- Occupation of the house despite expiry of the license agreement – Suit for mandatory injunction against the petitioner for vacation of the house in question already filed -- No doubt the suit has been stayed but it does not mean that respondent No.2 can continue to use the criminal proceedings for settling the civil dispute between her and the petitioner – Held, dispute between the contesting parties is predominantly civil in nature and the criminal proceedings have been used to settle the civil dispute – FIR impugned is nothing but an abuse of process of law – FIR quashed.

(Para 19-21)

Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Section 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 -- Insecticides Rules, 1971, Rule 27(5) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468, 470, 473, 482 – Quashing of complaint/ summoning order -- Time barred complaint -- Sample of insecticide was taken on 26.07.2011 and the report of Public Analyst was received on 12.08.2011 – Limitation will commence from the date of receipt of the report of the Public Analyst -- Sanction letter is dated 01.01.2014, which was applied on 06.08.2012 -- Period of 1 year 4 months and 26 days is liable to be excluded for computing the period of limitation -- Complaint filed on 30.03.2016 is beyond the period of 3 years -- Ld. Magistrate was statutorily debarred from taking cognizance of the offence in view of Section 468 CrPC -- Complaint, the summoning order and all subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 8-17)

A. Constitution of India, Article 233, 234 -- Judicial Officer – Code of Conduct -- Unwritten code of conduct is writ large for judicial officers to emulate and imbibe high moral or ethical standards expected of a higher judicial functionary -- Judge’s official and personal conduct be free from impropriety; the same must be in tune with the highest standard of the propriety and probity -- The standard of conduct is higher than expected from a layman and also higher than expected of an advocate -- Even his private life must adhere to high standard of propriety and probity, higher than those deemed acceptable for others.

(Para 22)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- Judicial Officer – Involvement/ Becoming party in litigation/ FIR – A Judge who himself wants to become a party in a proceeding then he must quit his office first, to maintain the standard of purity and unblemished character -- It is not possible that he remain as a sitting Judge on one hand and after using his power prevail upon his subordinate officer to affect arrest his adversary.

(Para 23)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Quashing of FIR -- F.I.R. does not disclose any offence -- Same has been procured by the C.J.M. after exerting threats upon the concerned S.I. – Taking into account the prima facie findings and the material collected by the S.I.T., F.I.R. is driven by malafides and in the colourable exercise of power -- F.I.R. quashed exercising the extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 26, 28)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- FIR -- Judicial Officer as first informant – Instructions given -- Except in the matter of grave and severe nature like murder, suicide, rape or other sexual offences, dowry death, dacoity and in rest of the remaining cases, if any, judicial officer or Judge wants to become the first informant in his personal capacity in any F.I.R., he must take his concerned District Judge into confidence and after having the assent from the District Judge, he can become an informant of any F.I.R.

(Para 27)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 2(1)(p), 3 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Proceeds of crime – Direction to register a case and arrest of  accused -- Enforcement Directorate is not an investigating agency stricto  sensu -- The command and mandate of the Enforcement Directorate under the 2002 Act is to ensure that no person benefits from the proceeds of crime derived out of the commission of a scheduled offence and to see that such property is confiscated to the State -- There cannot be any direction issued to consider representation which has been filed with a prayer to register a case and arrest certain individuals for that is not the mandate of the Enforcement Directorate.

(Para 1, 19)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 33(5) – POCSO case -- Recalling of victim/ child witness repeatedly -- There is no absolute bar u/s 33(5) of the POCSO Act to recall a victim witness, every case has to be weighed on the strength of its own evidence and necessity of recalling the child victim.

(Para 4)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 436A – PMLA case – Bail -- Appellant will complete 3½ years of incarceration on 26th May, 2024, half of the prescribed sentence -- Trial has not started, as the charge has not been framed -- Section 436A of Cr.PC will apply even to a case under the PMLA -- But the Court can still deny the relief owing to the ground such as where the trial was delayed at the instance of the accused -- No occasion for the appellant to cause the delay in trial, as even charge has not been framed -- Appellant order to be enlarged on bail on 27th May, 2024 u/s 436A of the Cr.PC.

(Para 3-6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Cognizance of offence -- When the Magistrate in exercise of his judicial discretion directs investigation u/s 156(3) of Cr. P.C., he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence -- It is only when the Magistrate after applying his mind prefers to follow the procedure under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. by resorting to Section 200, he can be said to have taken cognizance of the offence.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Trial court perused complaint, the documents in support thereof and on submissions and after having been prima facie satisfied, exercised its judicial discretion directing investigation u/s 156(3) of Cr. P.C -- High Court should not have interfered with the same, more particularly while exercising limited powers u/s 482 of Cr. P.C --  Order passed by the High Court set aside, order of Trial Court restored.

(Para 10, 11)

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (57 of 1994), Section 3, 5, 6, 23, 25, 28 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Disclosing the sex of foetus – Role of owner of Hospital -- Quashing of complaint/ summoning order -- No allegation, direct or indirect levelled against owner of Hospital -- Ownership of the Hospital where the ultrasound was allegedly carried upon a decoy pregnant woman would not make him liable under the PCPNDT Act -- At the very least, the allegations in the complaint should demonstrate the commission of a cognizable offence by the accused in question -- Any such evidence against owner is conspicuously absent – Petition allowed qua owner of hospital.

(Para 1, 13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 386, 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 469, 471 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Cheating – Extortion -- Regular bail -- Allegations against the petitioner are based upon the disclosure statement – He is in custody for the last 5 months and 22 days -- Although, he is involved in one more case, but has already been allowed bail -- Out of 14 witnesses cited by the prosecution, not even a single witness has been examined so far and thus, trial is likely to take long time to conclude -- The case is triable by Magistrate – Bail allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused – Procedure of -- Section 319 of Cr.P.C. becomes applicable, when during the trial after the filing of the challan and framing of the charge-sheet, evidence is presented indicating the involvement of a person, who was not initially charged by the police -- If the evidence establishes the person's complicity, the court may proceed to include them in the proceedings -- To apply Section 319 CrPC, evidence led should be such that it shows more than a prima facie case as is exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.

(Para 11)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 341, 506, 379, 379-B, 356, 201, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Snatching case -- Summoning of additional accused – As per the FIR version, the attribution to the petitioner is that he had caught hold of the petitioner -- Main accused and other assailants are attributed to be armed with weapons and having caused injuries -- There is no such attribution to the petitioner -- Apart from above, the FIR has already been quashed qua the main accused -- Merely on the basis of statement of PW1 made during trial, the trial Court was at fault in holding that there was more than a prima facie case so as to summon the petitioner -- Impugned summoning order set aside.

(Para 12-15)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 299 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 33 -- Statement of complainant u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. – Exhibited by Investigation Officer – Accused/ appellant remained absconding for a period of nearly 10 years -- Complainant left his house where he used to reside earlier -- Despite ample efforts being made by the Investigating Agency to summon and examine complainant, he could not be traced out and produced in the witness box for deposition during trial after the accused had been arrested -- Viewed in light of the provisions of Section 299 CrPC read with Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the trial Court was justified in holding that the statement of complainant recorded in these proceedings was fit to be read as a piece of substantive evidence.

(Para 23, 38, 39)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 – Murder of wife -- Circumstantial evidence – Last seen together – Circumstances leading to murder were in the exclusive knowledge of the appellant -- He has offered no explanation as to the manner in which deceased was strangled to death within the confines of the room where only he and the deceased were present -- Bald plea of denial offered by the accused by way of an explanation to this gravely incriminating circumstance is not sufficient to absolve him of the burden cast upon him by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

(Para 46)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Murder -- Incriminating circumstances -- Prosecution has established the following links in the chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence: (i) Motive; (ii) Last seen together; (iii) Medical evidence establishing that the cause of death of the deceased was homicidal. (iv) Confessional note; (v) Abscondence for nearly 10 years; (vi) Wrong explanation given by the accused in his statement under Section 313 CrPC; (vii) Failure of the accused to offer explanation for the homicidal death of his wife in the night time when only the accused and deceased were present in the house leading to the interference of guilt by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -- Conviction of appellant confirmed – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 47-51)

A. Constitution of India, Article 21 – Punjab Police Rules 1934, Rule 23.8, 23.9 -- History sheet – Name of minor child -- Extra care and precaution, to be observed by a police officer while ensuring that the identity of a minor child is not disclosed -- It will prevent the undesirable exposure to the minor children.

(Para 9)

B. Constitution of India, Article 21 – Punjab Police Rules 1934, Rule 23.8, 23.9 -- History sheet – Scope of -- Police authorities of States and Union Territories may consider the desirability of ensuring that no mechanical entries in History Sheet are made of innocent individuals, simply because they happen to hail from the socially, economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, along with those belonging to Backward Communities, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes.

(Para 14)

C. Constitution of India, Article 21 – Punjab Police Rules 1934, Rule 23.8, 23.9 -- Life – Scope -- Expression ‘life’ unequivocally includes the right to live a life worthy of human honour and all that goes along with it –  Self-regard, social image and an honest space for oneself in one’s surrounding society, are just as significant to a dignified life as are adequate food, clothing and shelter.

(Para 15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 403, 420, 421, 425 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – Commercial transaction – Breach of contract -- Three hypothecated trucks not produced for inspection -- Rather disclosed that they had dismantled  and disposed of the same -- Said act prima facie, makes out a case u/s 421 and 425 of IPC -- At the stage of considering the quashing of the FIR, the Court is required only to look into the allegations made in the complaint/ FIR by taking them to be at their face value -- Mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings -- Both criminal and civil law remedy can be pursued – Quashing petition dismissed.

(Para 34-38)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Abetment to commit suicide – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Power to quash the FIR depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case -- It is required to be seen by the High Court as to whether Section 306 IPC is even made out from the contents of FIR or not before coming to the conclusion that quashing of proceedings u/s 306 IPC on the basis of compromise should be allowed or not by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. -- Merely by blaming the petitioners to be responsible for commission of suicide by the deceased in the suicide note, cannot be sufficient to invoke Section 306 IPC – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 13-15, 26)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Abetment to commit suicide – No details are given as to when and in what manner, petitioners harassed the deceased -- Simply by mentioning in the suicide note that accused-petitioner  harassed the deceased and is responsible for the commission of suicide by deceased, cannot be sufficient to invoke Section 306 IPC.

(Para 19)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Cheque bounce complaint – Production of Bank Account statement of complainant from Bank – Locus standi of accused -- Trial Court dismissed the application by observing that power to summon any document on file is vested with the Court or the Officer In-charge of the Police Station and thus, the application moved at the instance of petitioner-accused could not be entertained -- Held, power u/s 91 of CrPC can be exercised either by the Court on its own or even on an application moved by either of the parties to the trial – Impugned order set aside, matter remanded back to trial court to adjudicate afresh.

(Para 3-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 482 – Murder – Summoning of additional accused – Quashing of summoning order -- Not being an eye-witness, PW-1’s deposition is not sufficient enough to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction u/s 319 to summon the appellants -- No other witnesses deposed against the appellants -- No documentary evidence – No role attributed to the appellants -- Deposition of PW-1 is in line and consistent with her statement u/s 161 -- Higher degree of satisfaction required for exercising power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is not met – Held, Trial Court committed a serious error in issuing summons to the appellants -- High Court should have quashed the order – Appeal allowed, impugned order/ judgment set aside.

(Para 23-26)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 104 – Accused at abroad – Proclaimed person -- At the time of issuance of proclamation u/s 82 of the Cr.P.C., the trial Court was fully conscious of the fact that the petitioner has gone abroad -- Trial Court at the first instance should have proceeded u/s 105 of the Cr.P.C. for effecting service upon the petitioner through German Consulate -- Date of appearance was short of 30 days statutory period -- Still further, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person on date, which was not fixed for appearance – Held, declaration of petitioner as proclaimed person was wholly in violation of the statutory mandate laid down u/s 82 read with Section 105 Cr.P.C thereof – Petition allowed, impugned order set aside.

(Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 182, 199, 201, 203, 211 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 27 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195, 482 -- Quashing of Challan/ Charge-sheet – Petitioner/ Complainant charge-sheeted in his own FIR -- Petitioner filed private complaint in which preliminary evidence has already been recorded – Not proper for the Investigating Agency to file the challan against the petitioner to prosecute him in the FIR, which was lodged on his own complaint instead of filing the cancellation report -- By not filing the cancellation report, petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to file protest petition -- Challan and Charge-sheet quashed.

(Para 11-19)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Parole for own engagement and marriage ceremony -- Petition allowed, petitioner granted parole for a period of two weeks.

(Para 1-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 39, 192, 207, 177, 179, 187, 196 -- Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 2001, Section 22, 28 (i) – Cognizance against Post / Non-juridical person – Permissibility of -- Summons in a criminal case to face trial cannot be issued against positions or post as a post is not juridical person – Ld. CJM issued summons against DGM Sail, M/s. RMD Gua Ore Mines more so when such post undisputedly does not even exist -- Taking cognizance by not naming any person who was responsible for the alleged criminal act is certainly not sustainable in law – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Abetment to suicide – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- Uttering words “go and hang yourself” – Whether abetment – No -- Sole accused, husband of the lady with whom the deceased had certain relationship and had blunt out his anger and had uttered words ‘go and hang yourself’ cannot mean that it would become the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC for it to become an offence u/s 306 of the IPC – Reason for the deceased to commit suicide may be myriad, one of which could be the factum of him having illicit relationship with the wife of the petitioner, despite being the Father and Priest of a Church -- Charge sheet filed -- Such cases should be nipped in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. – Proceedings pending before the Principal District & Sessions Judge quashed.

(Para 14-15)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 391 -- Additional evidence at Appellate stage -- Certified copy issued by Private Bank -- Application for bringing on record the certified copy issued by the private bank -- Certified copy issued by the private bank is not per-se admissible, rather the same is required to be proved by way of evidence -- In the absence of any prayer for proving such document, even if application is allowed, such document would not be admissible as an evidence -- Application dismissed.

(Para 6, 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 190, 200, Chapter XV – Cancellation report by police -- Protest petition – Private complaint – Right of complainant -- Magistrate had the liberty to reject the Protest Petition along with all other material which may have been filed in support of the same -- In that event the Complainant would be at liberty to file a fresh complaint -- The right of the Complainant to file a petition u/s 200 Cr.P.C. is not taken away even if the Magistrate does not direct that such a Protest Petition be treated as a complaint -- Magistrate ought to have followed the provisions and the procedure prescribed under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C..

(Para 3, 10, 11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 – Cheque bounce complaint – Transfer of case -- Agreement executed at Pune, petitioner/accused is resident of Pune -- Cheques which were dishonoured are also issued on Bank at Pune -- In the agreement, the jurisdictional clause provide that the Court where the bank has provided loan facility will have a jurisdiction to entertain dispute between the parties -- Cheque was presented in the respondent’s Branch at Calcutta – Entire cause of action has arisen at Pune and only in order to harass the petitioner the complaints have been filed at Calcutta by manipulating the jurisdiction – Complaint transferred from Calcutta to Pune.

(Para 6-11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 256 -- Acquittal/ Dismissal of complaint for want of prosecution -- Power of the Magistrate u/s 256 Cr.P.C to acquit an accused should be exercised judicially, based on a definite conclusion that the complainant no longer desires to prosecute the complaint -- Judicious course would be to direct the complainant to appear for the hearing, if it is imperative, and decide whether the drastic step of acquittal is to be passed in case he fails to appear.

(Para 15)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 256, 378(4) -- Cheque bounce complaint – Absence of complainant -- Dismissed for want of  prosecution -- Neither the complainant was present for trial nor any order directing complainant to remain present was passed on the earlier occasion – Ld. Magistrate ought to have adjourned the complaint to a later date directing the complainant to positively remain present on the next date -- Held, learned Magistrate was not justified in straight away dismissing the complaint and ordering acquittal of the accused respondents on mere non-appearance of the complainant -- Impugned order quashed and set aside -- Proceedings restored to its original number.

(Para 18-20)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Additional accused – Summoning -- Discretionary power is extraordinary and must be exercised judiciously only when compelling reasons exist to take cognizance against these individuals -- While summoning an individual, a prima facie case against him/her should be discernible which would reasonably lead to his/her conviction -- Evidence must be stronger than mere probability of complicity -- Trial Court is obligated to adopt a rigorous standard of appraisal of evidence, ensuring that the material on record could reasonably lead to the conviction of a person sought to be summoned.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Additional accused – Summoning – Alibi -- Contention that it had come during investigation that the petitioner was not present at the time of the alleged occurrence cannot be a ground for the learned Trial Court to not summon a person as an additional accused u/s 319 of the Cr.P.C. -- Right of an accused to present his evidence of alibi would always be available to him during trial.

(Para 10)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Section 61 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451, 482 -- Excise matter -- Superdari of vehicle – Onerous condition – Permissibility of – Superdari order with the condition that petitioner shall furnish sapurdari bonds in sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, along with cash security or bank guarantee of equal amount -- Condition imposed upon the petitioner, is an onerous condition, and therefore, the same is required to be modified -- Petitioner ordered to  furnish personal bond in sum of Rs.1.5 lac, and also additional security bond of the same amount.

(Para 2, 6, 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 205, 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 469, 471, 180, 120-B -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 23 -- Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 67B -- POCSO -- Permanent exemption from personal appearance – Charges framed on 14.07.2023 and only 5 PWs out of 15, have been examined so far – Personal appearance of the petitioners before the learned trial Court exempted subject to conditions.

(Para 6, 7)