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)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120-B -- Murder -- Life imprisonment – Suspension of sentence -- Appeal against the conviction is pending before the High Court since 2018 -- High Court, however, declined to grant suspension of sentence pending the disposal of the appeal – Petitioner has undergone over twelve years and six months of actual imprisonment – Since the appeal before the High Court is likely to take time for disposal, Supreme Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail, pending the disposal of the appeal.

(Para 1-4)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 405, 406 – Criminal breach of trust -- For Section 406 of the IPC to get attracted, there must be criminal breach of trust in terms of Section 405 of the IPC -- For Section 405 of the IPC to be attracted, the following have to be established:

(a) the accused was entrusted with property, or entrusted with dominion over property;

(b) the accused had dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use that property, or dishonestly used or disposed of that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so; and

(c) such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal should be in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract which the person has made, touching the discharge of such trust.

Thus, criminal breach of trust would, inter alia, mean using or disposing of the property by a person who is entrusted with or otherwise has dominion -- Such an act must not only be done dishonestly, but also in violation of any direction of law or any contract express or implied relating to carrying out the trust.

(Para 12-14)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 405, 406 – Criminal breach of trust -- Complaint does not directly refer to the ingredients of Section 405 of the IPC and does not state how and in what manner, on facts, the requirements are satisfied -- Pre-summoning evidence is also lacking and suffers on this account -- If monetary demand or claim is incorrect and not payable, offence u/s 405/ 406 is not constituted.

(Para 15)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 415, 420 -- Cheating -- In order to apply Section 420 of the IPC,  the ingredients of Section 415 of the IPC have to be satisfied -- To constitute an offence of cheating u/s 415 of the IPC, a person should be induced, either fraudulently or dishonestly, to deliver any property to any person, or consent that any person shall retain any property -- Second class of acts set forth in the section is the intentional inducement of doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do, if she were not so deceived -- Thus, the sine qua non of Section 415 of the IPC is “fraudulence”, “dishonesty”, or “intentional inducement”, and the absence of these elements would debase the offence of cheating.

(Para 16)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Cheating -- There is no assertion, much less legal evidence, to submit that accused/company had engaged in dishonesty, fraud, or intentional inducement to deliver a property -- It is not the case of respondent no. 2 - complainant that accused-company had tried to deceive them, either by making a false or misleading representation, or by any other action or omission; nor is it their case that accused-company had offered any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver a property -- As such, ingredients of Section 415 of the IPC are not satisfied, the offence u/s 420 of the IPC is not made out.

(Para 17)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 464,  470,  471 -- Forged document -- To constitute the offence u/s 471 of the IPC, it has to be proven that the document was “forged” in terms of Section 470, and “false” in terms of Section 464 of the IPC -- Section 470 lays down that a document is ‘forged’ if there is: (i) fraudulent or dishonest use of a document as genuine; and (ii) knowledge or reasonable belief on the part of the person using the document that it is a forged one -- Section 470 defines a forged document as a false document made by forgery -- As per Section 464 of the IPC, a person is said to have made a ‘false document’: (i) if he has made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; (ii) if he has altered or tampered a document; or (iii) if he has obtained a document by practising deception, or from a person not in control of his senses -- Unless, the document is false and forged in terms of Sections 464 and 470 of the IPC respectively, the requirement of Section 471 of the IPC would not be met.

(Para 18)

F. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 204 -- Summoning of accused – Duty of Magistrate -- Even though at the stage of issuing process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons, there should be adequate evidence on record to set the criminal proceedings into motion -- Requirement of Section 204 of the Code is that the Magistrate should carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record -- He/she may even put questions to complainant and his/her witnesses when examined u/s 200 of the Code to elicit answers to find out the truth about the allegations -- Only upon being satisfied that there is sufficient ground for summoning the accused to stand the trial, summons should be issued.

(Para 21)

G. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 202, 204 – Summoning of accused -- Summoning order is to be passed when the complainant discloses the offence, and when there is material that supports and constitutes essential ingredients of the offence -- It should not be passed lightly or as a matter of course -- Summoning without appreciation of the legal provisions and their application to the facts may result in an innocent being summoned to stand the prosecution/trial -- While summoning an accused who resides outside the jurisdiction of court, in terms of the insertion made to Section 202 of the Code by Act No. 25 of 2005, it is obligatory upon the Magistrate to inquire into the case himself or direct investigation be made by a police officer or such other officer for finding out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(Para 21, 22)

H. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 204, 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 405, 420, 471, 120-B – Cheating -- Criminal breach of trust – Forgery -- Summoning of accused – Quashing of complaint/ summoning order/ non-bailable warrants -- Non-bailable warrant was not issued in the name of any person but by designation against the Chief Manager JIPL – High Court, while dismissing the petition filed u/s 482 of the Code, failed to take due notice that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be initiated when it is manifest that these proceedings have been initiated with ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite the opposite side due to private or personal grudge -- Allegations in the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence on record, when taken on the face value and accepted in entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged -- Inherent powers of the court can and should be exercised in such circumstances -- When the allegations in the complaint are so absurd or inherently improbable, on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient wrong for proceeding against the accused, summons should not be issued – Proceedings and complaint quashed.

(Para 10, 23-25)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 29, 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Son’s criminal liability – Appeal -- Accused is none other than the son of the deceased-father who borrowed the loan from the complainant and the accused agreed to repay the same and he has issued the cheque -- Such being the case, as a legal representative of the father, the accused is liable to repay the loan to the complainant – First Appellate Court not considered Section 29 of the N.I. Act and has erred in acquitting the accused -- Judgment of the First Appellate Court set aside -- Judgment of the trial Court convicting the respondent-accused upheld.

(Para 8-12)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 29, 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Son’s criminal liability – Time barred debt – Deceased father of accused borrowed loan in the year 2003, the cheque was issued by son after four years -- Accused once paid Rs.10,000/- by cash and subsequently, he issued a cheque to discharge the liability, he is liable for discharging his liability of his father -- Judgment of the trial Court convicting the respondent-accused upheld.

(Para 8-12)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Cheque bounce case – Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A IPC -- Complaint u/s 138 of the Act was compromised and the complaint stood dismissed as withdrawn – Held, continuation of proceedings u/s 174-A IPC shall be an abuse of process of law -- Petition allowed and FIR u/s 174-A IPC along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143-A – Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation – Discretion of Court -- Court trying a complaint for offence u/s 138 of NI Act has discretion to order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant -- Amount of compensation has not to exceed 20% of the amount of the cheque – Held, grant of interim compensation is a discretionary power and such order has to be based on reason and logic.

(Para 9)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143-A – Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation – Discretion of Court -- No guidelines for grant of interim compensation have been laid down in Section 143-A of the NI Act -- it is a settled law that whenever a discretionary power is to be exercised by a Court, the same has to be exercised on well-recognized principles supported by reasons -- Court has to spell out the reasons for grant of interim compensation in favour of the complainant and it has also to justify in its order with reasons the quantum of interim compensation that is being awarded by him as the said quantum can vary from 1% to 20% of the cheque amount.

-- Some of the reasons for granting interim compensation may be that the accused absconds and avoids to appear before the Court despite service or there is overwhelming material on record to show that the accused is liable to pay an enforceable debt or that the accused is guilty of protracting the proceedings by avoiding to cross-examine the witnesses or producing his evidence.

(Para 10, 11)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 251 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation – Discretion of court -- Reasoned order – Requirement of -- Magistrate is empowered to grant interim compensation in favour of a complainant ranging from 1% to 20% of the cheque amount -- Trial Magistrate has granted interim compensation in the maximum range of 20% without assigning any reason – Order impugned is devoid of any reasons and no discussion is made in the impugned order as to why interim compensation is being awarded – Ld. Magistrate has not dealt with the aspect of the matter relating to denial of execution of the cheque by the accused in his statement recorded u/s 251 of the Cr. P. C – Order is not sustainable in law, quashed.

(Para 14, 15)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 195(1) -- FIR u/s 188 IPC – Quashing of FIR – No complaint in writing by Public Servant as required u/s 195(1) Cr.P.C -- Registration of FIR and commencement of proceedings qua petitioner is impermissible -- FIR quashed.

(Para 9, 11)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 468, 469 -- FIR u/s 188 IPC – Quashing of FIR – Limitation -- Period of limitation would be one year from the date of commission of offence with respect to Section 188 IPC -- SDJM, had taken the cognizance, beyond the period of limitation as detailed in Sections 468 and 469 Cr.P.C. -- Petition allowed, FIR u/s 188 IPC, and subsequent proceedings emanating from it quashed.

(Para 10, 11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468, 469 -- Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Section 61 – Quashing of FIR -- Excise matter – Limitation -- Maximum sentence prescribed 2 years -- Trial Court can take cognizance within 3 years -- Held, prosecution was required to file challan within three years whereas a period of 08 years has expired, however, till date challan has not been presented -- In view of mandate of Section 468 Cr.P.C. the petition allowed and FIR quashed.

(Para 2, 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379, 413, 473 -- Punjab Habitual Offenders (Control and Reform) Act (XII of 1952), Section 2(3) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 228 – Framing of charge u/s 413 IPC – Challenge to -- Habitually dealing in stolen property – Petitioners have not been convicted in any case -- Apart from the present case two FIR u/s 379 IPC have been registered against petitioners and the same are pending trial – Nothing on record to prove that the petitioners have been convicted in connection with their dealing in stolen property – Held, no prima facie case u/s 413 IPC is made out against the petitioners -- Resultantly, the impugned order set aside to the aforesaid extent only.

(Para 7-13)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 33 – Criminal trial – Opportunity of cross-examination -- On the very first date, when PW-1 ASI was present and his examination-in-chief was recorded, his cross-examination was treated as NIL – Order passed by the trial Court set aside -- One effective opportunity granted to the petitioner to cross-examine PW-1 ASI.

(Para 5-8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Cheque bounce case – Partnership firm not arrayed as an accused – Quashing of complaint u/s 138 of N. I. Act -- Cheque in question bears signature of the petitioner being authorized signatory of partnership firm -- The expression ‘company’ also includes a firm, as is provided in Explanation to Section 141 of the Act – There cannot be any vicarious liability of the partner of a partnership firm unless there is a prosecution against the partnership firm -- Thus, the complaint filed by the respondent is not maintainable and it is bad in law and entire proceedings in pursuance thereof are nothing but an abuse of process of the Court and are liable to the quashed -- Petition allowed and criminal complaint, summoning order and the order passed by the Revisional Court and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 11-18)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 427 -- Constitution of India, Article 32, 136, 226 -- Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 136 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 411 -- Theft of electricity – Conviction in nine cases – Concurrent running of sentence – Appellant is in jail for three years – Writ dismissed, meaningly the appellant has to go undergo a total term of imprisonment of 18 years – All the conviction took place on the same day – Held, High Court ought to have intervened in the exercise of its jurisdiction by setting right the miscarriage of justice -- Appeal allowed, sentences in the nine sessions trials ordered to run concurrently.

(Para 5-14)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of complaint – Inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- For the quashing of a criminal complaint, the Court, when it exercises its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the complaint disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.

(Para 11)

B. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), Section 3(f), 18(c) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Manufacturing of drugs without license – Quashing of complaint -- Appellants purchased pyridoxal-5-phosphate, 75 kg (as 3 x 25kg packets), however, no stock was found on the premise of the Appellants -- Alleged breaking up of the impugned substance into smaller packages and further distribution of the same is being classified by the Respondent/ complainant as “manufacturing”

-- The impugned substance, has been categorized as a bulk food substance falling under the definition of food as per Section 3(1)(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

-- The impugned substance has specifically been mentioned as a food ingredient in Serial No.4(ii) of the Schedule-I of the Food Safety and Standards Regulations, 2016.

Alleged substance is not included as a drug in the Indian Pharmacopoeia -- Impugned substance does not require a specific license -- No explanation for the extraordinary delay of more than four years -- Proceedings quashed.

(Para 12-29)

C. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), Section 3(f), 18(c) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Manufacturing of drugs without license – Delay in complaint – Quashing of complaint -- Inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint.

(Para 25)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 54 -- Cheque bounce case – Additional evidence -- Certified copy of judgment of previous conviction -- Evidence showing any previous conviction is also relevant as evidence of bad character -- Thus the evidence relating to previous conviction (past actions of a person) in a case of similar nature would be relevant -- However, the evidentiary value of the same would be evaluated by the ld. trial Court at the time of final disposal of a case – No prejudice would be caused to the accused if the aforesaid judgment is taken on record as the petitioner would get an opportunity to rebut the same – Impugned order in allowing application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. not suffering from illegality and infirmity – No interfere is called for.

(Para 11,12)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) – Leave to appeal -- Granting of special leave to appeal against acquittal is a discretionary power.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 452, 506, 166, 167 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 12 -- Rape -- Cancellation report in FIR –  Ld. JMIC dismissed the complaint -- Leave to appeal -- Applicant/ prosecutrix was alleged to be raped on 07.01.2016 and 10.02.2016 – She opted to remain silent after alleged incident of 07.01.2016 and approached police on 10.02.2016 i.e. after second incident -- There is gap of one month between first incident and second incident -- Applicant attempted to implicate police officials who did not agree with her complaint -- MLR was not supporting the case of the applicant -- No injury was found over the body of the applicant -- Complainant/applicant failed to make out prima facie case warranting summoning of alleged accused – There is no infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order whereby trial Court has dismissed the complaint -- Permission for special leave to appeal rejected.

(Para 7, 8)