Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(i)(x) 14 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 465 – Summoning under SC ST Act By Magistrate – Jurisdiction of Special Court -- Occurrence of 02.04.2011, summoning order of 10.01.2017 – Held, cognizance taken by the Magistrate after the amendment-01.01.2016 in the Act, would not vitiate the proceedings.

(Para 18-25)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227, 228, 300 –Double jeopardy – Plea of -- Discharge application – Framing of charge -- Stage of discharge u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is a stage prior to framing of the charge u/s 228 Cr.P.C. and it is at that stage alone that the court can consider the application u/s 300 Cr.P.C. -- Once the court rejects the discharge application, it would proceed to framing of charge u/s 228 Cr.P.C. -- Ld. trial Court erred in not considering the application u/s 300(1) Cr.P.C. at the time of framing of charge and/or prior to framing of the charge – Matter remanded back to the ld. trial Court to consider the plea of the accused on applicability of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. at the stage of discharge u/s 227 Cr.P.C.

(Para 7-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Maintainability of – Arrest in another case -- Since the applicant is in custody in connection with another case, the present anticipatory bail application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. would not lie and would not be maintainable.

(Para 12)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Sections 7 and 13(1) (b), 13(2) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Corruption case -- Regular bail – Illegal gratification of Rs. 7,000/- for entering inheritance mutation – Though investigation is complete conclusion of the trial is likely to take time; moreso, sanction to prosecute u/s 19 of the Act is still awaited; no recovery is to be made from the petitioner and he volunteers to give his voice sample, the petitioner granted bail.

(Para 1-5)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 409, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Criminal breach of trust by government servant – Conspiracy – Quashing of FIR -- Rs.15,000/- received by the co-accused was never ever handed over to the petitioner, recovery was effected from his co-accused – Petitioner was repeatedly asking his co-accused, Kanungo to explain as to why the said amount had not been deposited, letters would conclusively establish that the petitioner had absolutely no role to play in the defalcation of the said amount – It was his co-accused alone who had received the money and not deposited the same – Absolutely no evidence on record to establish conspiracy between the petitioner and his co-accused – FIR qua petitioner quashed.

(Para 20)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 409 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 197 – Criminal breach of trust by government servant – Sanction for prosecution -- For the commission of an offence u/s 409 IPC, sanction for prosecution u/s 197 Cr.P.C. is not required.

(Para 20)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 210 -- Trial of case version and cross version – Procedure of -- Trial Judge directed to try both the case and cross-case one after the other -- After recording the evidence in one case, he must hear the arguments but reserve the judgment -- Thereafter, he must proceed to hear the cross-case and after recording of the evidence, he must hear the arguments and reserve the judgment in that case as well -- The same learned Judge must, thereafter, dispose of the matters by two separate judgments -- For deciding each of the cases, he shall rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case without looking at the evidence recorded in the cross-case -- The judgments must be pronounced by the same Judge one after the other.

(Para 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory Bail – 72 hours’ notice before arrest – Direction given by the High Court to the State that 72 hours’ notice should be given to the first respondent in the event that the State finds it necessary to arrest him in connection with any complaint pertaining to a cognizable offence at the behest of the Joint Registrar (Audit) is manifestly incorrect in law -- Such a direction could not have been issued by the High Court, accordingly vacated and set aside.

(Para 1-3)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused – Power to pass order u/s 319 Cr.P.C. after acquittal – Power to pass order u/s 319 CR.P.C. after sentence in case of conviction -- Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 of CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial with respect to other co-accused has ended and the judgment of conviction rendered on the same date before pronouncing the summoning order?

-- The power under Section 319 of CrPC is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. If the order is passed on the same day, it will have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case and if such summoning order is passed either after the order of acquittal or imposing sentence in the case of conviction, the same will not be sustainable.

(Para 33)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 -- Summoning of additional accused – Absconding accused – Presence secured subsequently – Bifurcated trial – Power of trial court u/s 319 Cr.P.C. – Whether the trial court has the power under Section 319 of the CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial in respect of certain other absconding accused (whose presence is subsequently secured) is ongoing/pending, having been bifurcated from the main trial?

-- The trial court has the power to summon additional accused when the trial is proceeded in respect of the absconding accused after securing his presence, subject to the evidence recorded in the split up (bifurcated) trial pointing to the involvement of the accused sought to be summoned. But the evidence recorded in the main concluded trial cannot be the basis of the summoning order if such power has not been exercised in the main trial till its conclusion.

(Para 33)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused – What are the guidelines that the competent court must follow while exercising power under Section 319 CrPC?

(i) If the competent court finds evidence or if application under Section 319 of CrPC is filed regarding involvement of any other person in committing the offence based on evidence recorded at any stage in the trial before passing of the order on acquittal or sentence, it shall pause the trial at that stage.

(ii) The Court shall thereupon first decide the need or otherwise to summon the additional accused and pass orders thereon.

(iii) If the decision of the court is to exercise the power under Section 319 of CrPC and summon the accused, such summoning order shall be passed before proceeding further with the trial in the main case.

(iv) If the summoning order of additional accused is passed, depending on the stage at which it is passed, the Court shall also apply its mind to the fact as to whether such summoned accused is to be tried along with the other accused or separately.

(v) If the decision is for joint trial, the fresh trial shall be commenced only after securing the presence of the summoned accused.

(vi) If the decision is that the summoned accused can be tried separately, on such order being made, there will be no impediment for the Court to continue and conclude the trial against the accused who were being proceeded with.

(vii) If the proceeding paused as in (i) above is in a case where the accused who were tried are to be acquitted and the decision is that the summoned accused can be tried afresh separately, there will be no impediment to pass the judgment of acquittal in the main case.

(viii) If the power is not invoked or exercised in the main trial till its conclusion and if there is a split-up (bifurcated) case, the power under Section 319 of CrPC can be invoked or exercised only if there is evidence to that effect, pointing to the involvement of the additional accused to be summoned in the split up (bifurcated) trial.

(ix) If, after arguments are heard and the case is reserved for judgment the occasion arises for the Court to invoke and exercise the power under Section 319 of CrPC, the appropriate course for the court is to set it down for re-hearing.

(x) On setting it down for re-hearing, the above laid down procedure to decide about summoning; holding of joint trial or otherwise shall be decided and proceeded with accordingly.

(xi) Even in such a case, at that stage, if the decision is to summon additional accused and hold a joint trial the trial shall be conducted afresh and de novo proceedings be held.

(xii) If, in that circumstance, the decision is to hold a separate trial in case of the summoned accused as indicated earlier;

(a) The main case may be decided by pronouncing the conviction and sentence and then proceed afresh against summoned accused.

(b) In the case of acquittal the order shall be passed to that effect in the main case and then proceed afresh against summoned accused.

(Para 33)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 401 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Summary case – Regular trial – Specific order of Magistrate – Requirement of -- When the evidence of the parties, in the chief examination, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) were recorded in verbatim and was faithfully placed on record then for merely not recording the order observing that the matter would be tried as a summons case or as a regular trial would not itself vitiate the trial conducted by the Magistrate of the Trial Court, when it has not resulted in miscarriage of justice – Ld. Sessions Judge’s Court only on technicalities set aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court and ordered for a de-novo trial -- Sessions Judge's Court ought to have decided the appeal before it on its merit – Revision allowed, judgment passed by ld. ASJ set aside, matter remanded to ld. ASJ for its fresh disposal, in accordance with law.

(Para 18)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 340 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 – Police protection in run-away marriage -- Concealment of previous marriage – Proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C -- Proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C. are to be initiated in exceptional circumstances and considering the impact of commission of offence upon the administration of justice -- Only the directions were issued to the SSP to look into the representation with regard to the threat perception – Held, not a fit case for initiating enquiry for making false pleadings in the writ petition.

(Para 5-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120B, 167, 218, 330, 323, 195, 348, 365, 477A, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Kidnapping/ Abduction -- Anticipatory bail -- While granting anticipatory bail to the respondents/ accused, the High Court neither considered the allegations against the respective accused nor the role played by them nor the position held by them at the time of registering the FIR in the year 1994 nor the role played by them during the investigation -- High Court has also not taken note of the recommendations made by the Committee headed by a former Judge of Supreme Court – Appeals allowed, impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside -- Anticipatory Bail Applications remitted to the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and on their own merits.

(Para 5-8)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Acquittal – Appeal – Burden of proof -- Burden not only lies on the complainant (just like on prosecution in criminal trial), but it also lies on the accused -- So, it cannot be said that there is limited scope for interference in the judgment of acquittal particularly, when it is for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

(Para 9)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 20 -- Cheque – Requirement of Stamp -- Section 20 of the Negotiable Instrument Act talks about giving the authority to the holder to make inchoate stamped instrument complete -- Even though the cheque is negotiable instrument, it does not require stamp.

(Para 25)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 87, 138 – Cheque bounce case – Maintainability of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Security cheque – Material alteration -- Unilateral putting dates on cheques – Complainant unilaterally has put in dates on the cheques without the authority of the accused and even by not informing him -- So, it amounts to material alterations -- If it is so such negotiable instrument becomes void -- Hence prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act cannot be initiated.

(Para 27-32)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 37, 61, 85 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity – Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act -- Regular bail -- Recovery of 500 grams of heroin – Charges framed on 28.09.2021, about 18 adjournments granted but no prosecution witness examined except one formal witness – Prosecution witnesses are the official witnesses -- Petitioner in incarceration for about 2 years, 1 month and 24 days – Argument that petitioner is falsely implicated get substantiated from the fact that for 18 times no prosecution witness came forward for deposition -- Petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act – Not argued that in case the petitioner is released on bail, then he may repeat the offence or may abscond from justice -- Both the conditions for making a departure from the bar contained u/s 37 of the NDPS Act satisfied – Court deemed it fit and proper to grant the regular bail to the petitioner -- Petition allowed.

(Para 2-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Cheque bounce case -- Quashing of order declaring accused proclaimed person – Submitted that the petitioner was never served with the summons and has now come to know about the pendency of the complaint and he is ready to surrender before the trial Court and face the trial -- Issuance of notice of motion to respondents dispensed with, petition allowed, impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed persons, set aside -- Petitioner directed to appear before the trial Court within a period of 15 days and on doing so, the trial Court will release him on bail -- Till then arrest stayed.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 384, 323, 506, 34, 457, 458 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Extortion – Lurking house trespass or house breaking – Compromise quashing of FIR – Parties have entered into compromise voluntarily and without any undue influence – FIR and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom quashed qua petitioners.

(Para 5, 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 216, 397 -- Application for alteration of charge dismissed – Revision -- Dismiss in default – Revision petition could not have been dismissed in default -- In the event of absence of the parties, revisional Court could have itself examined the record to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order assailed before it -- Impugned order set aside, revisional Court directed to dispose of the revision petition in accordance with law.

(Para 4-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Dowry death – Regular bail to mother-in-law – Deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage – As per allegations in the FIR itself on the day of death, the petitioner had informed the complainant about the deceased having locked herself inside the room – After the occurrence the in-laws had shifted the deceased to the hospital – Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the presumption u/s 113-B of Evidence Act is attracted or not would be subject to the outcome of the trial – Out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, 3 witnesses have been examined – Petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail.

(Para 1,7)

Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29(1)(A), 33 -- Insecticides Rules, 1971, Rule 27(5) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Complaint under insecticides Act – Offence by Company -- Company not impleaded as accused – Quashing of complaint -- Director, employee or responsible officer of the company/firm cannot be prosecuted without impleadment of the said company/firm -- Thus, the complaint held not maintainable against both the petitioners on account non-arraignment of manufacturing company of which petitioner No.1 is Director and petitioner No.2 is Area Sales Manager, as an accused in the same -- Petition allowed, criminal complaint, and all consequential proceedings arising thereof, against both the petitioners quashed.

(Para 1, 14, 15)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Cheque by Trust -- Trust not impleaded as party in complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act -- Maintainability of the complaint – Petitioner is admittedly neither the signatory of the cheque nor is there any averment made by the complainant in the complaint that the petitioner was in-charge of and was responsible to the trust for the conduct of its business -- Mandate of Section 141 of NI Act not pleaded and established remotely -- Further proceeding in the complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of Court –Complaint as a whole being unsustainable in the eye of law needs to be quashed and accordingly quashed.

(Para 6-10)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(3) – State appeal against acquittal – Leave to appeal -- Delay of 303 days -- Condonation of delay is no more admissible on the pretext of lethargic working of Government -- Delay in filing the appeal or revision cannot be mechanically condoned, in the absence of 'sufficient cause' for delay -- No explanation put forth for explaining the delay for filing the application -- Reason given is that the file moved at a leisure pace -- Application for condonation of delay dismissed -- Consequently, the application u/s 378 (3) Cr.P.C. is dismissed as time barred.

(Para 5-8)

Public Gambling Act, 1867 (3 of 1867), Section 5, 13-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of FIR / Charge under Gambling Act -- Non-compliance of Section 5 of the Gambling Act and section 155(2) Cr.P.C -- Even no independent witness joined – Proceedings initiated against the petitioner are untenable, especially when the raid leading to lodging of FIR itself was from the threshold marred by procedural irregularity -- Same is a ground sufficient to quash the FIR and consequent proceedings in order to prevent abuse of process of law and secure of ends of justice.

(Para 18-20)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 380, 454 – Theft in dwelling house – Lurking house trespass -- Acquittal u/s 380 IPC -- State does not dispute the fact that offence punishable u/s 454 IPC is not stand alone offence and after acquittal of the petitioner of offence punishable under Section 380 IPC, 454 IPC cannot be maintained – Conviction u/s 454 IPC set aside.

(Para 6, 11)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 380, 411 – Theft in dwelling house – Acquittal u/s 380 IPC -- Recovery from the co-accused -- Petitioner was never charged for offence punishable u/s 411 IPC -- There is no order on record to show that the Trial Court ever exercised power u/s 216 Cr.P.C. to alter the charge -- Thus, the Courts below erred in holding the petitioner guilty of offence punishable under Section 411 IPC in the absence of charge -- Conviction u/s 411 IPC set aside.

(Para 8-11)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 32 – Writ for fair investigation and transfer of trial -- Murder -- Petitioners being daughter and wife of the deceased have a fundamental right to get justice as victim and they have a legitimate expectation that criminal trial is being conducted in a fair and impartial manner and uninfluenced by any extraneous considerations – Justice is not to be done but the justice is seen to have been done also -- As per the settled position of law, free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution -- If the criminal trial is not free and fair and if it is biased, judicial fairness and the criminal justice system would be at stake, shaking the confidence of the public in the system -- However, at the same time, looking to the large number of witnesses to be examined during the trial and no hardship is caused to those witnesses, instead of transferring the trial to New Delhi, case transferred to CBI Special Court at Hyderabad -- CBI also directed to complete the further investigation/investigation in the FIR on the larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence, at the earliest independently and in an unbiased manner.

(Para 13-15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 120-B -- Punjab Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2000 (9 of 2000), Section 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Evasion of VAT – FIR under General Acts – Quashing of FIR -- Provisions of the VAT Act only provide for mandatory penalty -- If a special provision has been made qua a particular subject (Value Added Tax), the said subject is excluded from the general provisions (Indian Penal Code) -- Since the provisions of the VAT Act do not provide for the registration of the FIR and the said Act is a Code in itself, the provisions of the IPC also cannot be invoked -- FIR could not have been registered against a person who was said to have evaded tax -- Petition allowed, FIR, the report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 499, 500 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 199, 200 -- Maintainability of second complaint – Exceptional circumstances -- Second complaint can be maintainable in exceptional circumstances -- If the first complaint was dismissed without venturing into the merits of the case or on a technical ground and/or by returning a reasoning which can be termed as perverse or absurd in law, and/or when the essential foundation of second complaint is based upon such set of facts which were either not in existence at the time when the first complaint was filed or the complainant could not have possibly lay his hands to such facts at that time, an exception can be made to entertain the second complaint.

(Para 14)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 499, 500 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 199, 200 -- Maintainability of Second complaint -- Judicial Magistrate having found that the allegations made by the appellant were in the teeth of fourth exception to Section 499 IPC, he declined to issue process to the respondents -- Such dismissal cannot be said to be without application of judicial mind – Such an order is always justiciable before a superior Court -- Even if the said Order is set aside, it does not mean that the trial court did not apply its mind -- Appellant challenged the order of dismissal before the High Court in a Criminal Revision Petition and withdrew the same to work out his remedy as may be available in law -- This Order cannot be construed to have permitted the appellant to file a second complaint on identical set of facts.

(Para 16, 17)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 447, 386 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheating and forgery – Quashing of FIR -- De-facto complainant/second respondent does not disclose any act of the present appellants or their participation in the commission of crime -- They are neither concerned with the sale deed nor in possession of the subject property nor are parties to the civil proceedings and it is not the case of the complainant that either the appellants have played any active/passive role either in scribing the document or are facilitators or witness to the document in reference to which the complaint has been made for cheating and committing forgery or have played any role in delivery of possession of the subject property in question – It appears that the de-facto complainant has implicated the present appellants being members of the family to put pressure for obtaining possession of the subject property and to settle the civil dispute – Held, High Court ought to have exercised its power u/s 482 CrPC for quashing of the criminal complaint and proceedings in consequence thereof qua the present appellants – Appeals allowed, FIR and all the consequential proceedings qua the present appellants stand quashed.

(Para 18-23)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372 – Acquittal of accused – Victim’s right of appeal -- Right to appeal given to a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code is prospective in nature and has been made enforceable w.e.f. 31.12.2009 -- A victim has a right to prefer appeal in respect of three types of the orders referred to in the proviso 2 Section 372 Cr.P.C., if such order has been passed on or after 31.12.2009 and no such right was available to the complainant/victim prior to 31.12.2009.

(Para 15, 16)

Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 (15 of 2022), Section 12(11) – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Parole – Non-decisioning of application – Writ petition – State that decision with respect to the grant of parole is to be taken within a period of 7 weeks -- 7 weeks have already elapsed, petition disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to take a final decision on the application within a period of 10 days.

(Para 2-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheating with bank -- Sale of mortgaged property -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Matter amicably resolved amongst the parties, as per the compromise policy, the entire amount has been paid by the petitioners to the bank and bank as of now has no claim qua them and has closed the account – Considering the reply by State and the fact that the entire amount has been paid back, it is a fit case for quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise -- Petitions allowed and FIR and all subsequent proceedings quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 304-B, 120-B, 302, 406 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 439 -- Murder – Dowry death – Regular bail to mother-in-law -- Petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased and is in custody for a period of 01 years, 08 months and 27 days -- It will be debatable and moot point during the course of trial as to whether it was a case of ante-mortem strangulation or suicidal hanging -- Out of 25, examination-in-chief of only one witness has been recorded and thereafter, an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C has been moved -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take some time and no fruitful purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner in further custody -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 7, 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 326, 452, 323, 427, 34 – Non-appearance of official prosecution witnesses -- By closing the prosecution evidence and dismissing the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. it is the complainant who has been penalised for the act and conduct of the State --  Trial Court should have taken coercive steps to secure the presence of the unexamined witness -- In case he plays truant with the Court and chooses not to appear, SSP shall take him into custody and produce him in the Court to depose as a prosecution witness.

(Para 1,3,12-14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 182 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195, 482 – False complaint – Quashing of Kalandra -- Kalandra/Complaint u/s 182 IPC – Cognizance of -- Court of competent jurisdiction can take cognizance of an offence punishable u/s 182 IPC only on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or his superior officer -- Mere direction by the competent authority to present Kalandara on its behalf by the SHO Police Station will not comply with the provisions of law -- Complaint was lodged by the petitioner with the Superintendent of Police but Kalandara has been presented by the SHO Police Station (i.e. by the public servant who is administratively subordinate to the Superintendent of Police), the same cannot be held to be valid and legal in terms of Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. -- Court cannot take cognizance of offence punishable u/s 182 IPC against the petitioner -- Kalandara and all proceedings subsequent thereto quashed.

(Para 12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 307, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Appellant and co-accused acquitted u/s 323, 307, 34 IPC, however convicted u/s 25 of Arms Act -- In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumersinbh Umedsinh Rajput @ Sumersinh’s case 2008 (1) Crimes 57, charge u/s 25 of Arms Act is not sustainable -- Appeal allowed, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence convicting the appellant u/s 25 of Arms Act  set aside and the appellant acquitted of the charge u/s 25 of Arms Act.

(Para 3, 11, 12)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118, 138, 139 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Presumption – Rebuttal of presumption -- Since there is no denial on the part of accused with regard to issuance of cheque and signatures thereupon, it can be presumed that the same was issued by the accused in discharge of lawful liability, as such, presumption under Ss. 118 and 139 of the Act comes into play in favour of the complainant -- Accused miserably failed to raise probable defence much less sufficient to rebut the presumption applicable in favour of the complainant under Section 118 and 139 of the Act -- Complainant successfully proved all the ingredients of S. 138 and as such, learned courts below had no option but to pass the judgments of conviction and order of sentence.

(Para 14)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397 – Conviction u/s 138 NI Act – Revisional jurisdiction -- High Court has a very limited jurisdiction u/s 397 of the Cr.PC, to re-appreciate the evidence, especially, in view of the concurrent findings of fact and law recorded by the courts below.

(Para 14)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Compromise/ Compounding after conviction -- Parties have settled the dispute and complainant had accepted the sum towards the full and final settlement of the cheque, on the satisfaction of the complainant -- Sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence u/s 138 of NI Act is liable to be set aside -- Petitioner directed to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- -- Conviction and sentence of imprisonment set aside on the basis of compromise.

(Para 5, 6)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 12 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Relevant date of maintenance if order is silent – Clarification by Executing court -- Order awarding maintenance do not specify as to from which date the amount of maintenance awarded is payable -- Executing Court clarified after hearing both the parties on the issue, that the amount of maintenance is payable from the date of the application and not from the date of the order – Held clarification is as per the law settled. Rajnesh’s case, 2021(1) L.A.R. 311 = (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15586 relied.

(Para 4)

Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 3(1)(d) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 427,120-B, 34 – Murder – Life imprisonment – Ailment of mother -- Parole – Petitioner availed parole/ furlough on different occasions, without any default -- Petitioner is having old mother aged about 86 years and there is no major male member to look after her and she is suffering from heart ailment which requires surgery – Nothing on record to show that the release of petitioner on parole is likely to endanger the security of the State and maintenance of public order -- Petitioner ordered to be released on parole for a period of four weeks.

(Para 4-8)

Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (8 of 1975), Section 3, 7, 10 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468, 472, 482 – Delay in FIR – Limitation – Quashing of FIR -- District Town Planner reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police, vide letter dated 27.09.2011 with a clear averment that the petitioner by way of sub-dividing his land into plots for residential/industrial/commercial purpose without obtaining the licence from the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, as required u/s 3 of the Act, has contravened the provisions of Section 7 of the Act which constitutes an offence punishable u/s 10 of the Act -- FIR was registered on 30.09.2016, challan report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. presented on 21.05.2018 and only thereafter, the cognizance was taken by the trial Court – Arguments of State that it is a continuing offence within the meaning of Section 472 Cr.P.C and therefore, a fresh period of limitation shall begin to run at every moment of time during which the offence continues, will not apply as the nature of offence do not make it continuing offence -- Petition allowed, FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed, qua the petitioner.

(Para 6-9)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 – Conviction u/s 138 of N.I. Act -- Compounding at revisional stage – Waiver of 15% cost -- Petitioner is stated to be a Class IV employee and his whole family including his wife and children are completely dependent upon him and the poor status of the financial condition of the petitioner is apparent from the fact that the complainant agreed to accept Rs.3.70 lacs instead of the cheque amount of Rs.4 lacs, as the full and final settlement in the year 2022 -- In view of the said special circumstances, the petitioner exempted from depositing the costs amounting to 15%.

(Para 15)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Conviction u/s 138 of N.I. Act -- Compounding at revisional stage – Setting aside of conviction – It is settled law that High Court has the power to set aside the judgement of conviction against the petitioner on the basis of a valid compromise -- Compromise is genuine and valid -- Judgment of conviction and sentence set aside and the petitioner acquitted of the charges framed against him.

(Para 16-17)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 323 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Attempt to murder – Compromise after conviction – Parties have decided to bury their inter-se dispute and further decided to live in peace, appeal partly allowed -- Sentence modified and reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants.

(Para 1,7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Cheque bounce case – Illegal activity -- Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal – Ld. Trial Court dismissed the complaint as Rs.3 lakhs paid to respondent/accused for getting job in the Department of Railway which is a Government Department as it was for illegal activities and it cannot be called as legally enforceable liability -- No infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order whereby trial Court has acquitted the respondent -- Leave to appeal rejected.

(Para 3-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 -- Matrimonial discord -- Transfer of case – Lucknow to Delhi -- Since two cases (HMA and DV Act) are already pending in the Delhi Courts in which respondent No.1 and her family members have already put their appearance and the petitioner, in the first case, on account of financial constraint, is likely to face hardships in travelling to Lucknow to defend herself in the Criminal Complaint – Transfer Petitions allowed.

(Para 5-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Condition to deposit salary – Sustainability of -- High Court granted pre-arrest bail on the condition that she will return the salary which she has received while working as a Panchayat Teacher – Held condition of returning the amount drawn by her as salary on appointment as Panchayat Teacher is neither justified nor required under the law while grant of pre-arrest bail to her, condition set aside.

(Para 2-5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 401 -- Conviction of accused by trial court – Ex-parte dismissal of appeal --  Held, impugned order has been passed in the absence of the petitioner and her counsel which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice; the matter directly relates to life and liberty of the applicant-petitioner, thus, it would be travesty of justice and violation of principles of natural justice -- Impugned order passed by the ld. ASJ set aside -- Petitioner directed to be present before the Appellate Court on 21.11.2022, no adjournment shall be granted and ld. ASJ, shall hear and decide the appeal on the date fixed.

(Para 3-7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Summoning of Clerk/ bank official with records of cheque – Diet money already stands deposited by the petitioner -- No force in the finding recorded by the court below that the application is to fulfill the lacuna in the light of the fact that application u/s 311 CrPC was made much prior in time before closing of the evidence by the petitioner – Case is fixed for defence evidence, in that eventuality if the application u/s Section 311 CrPC is allowed, no prejudice is going to be caused to the parties and rather, it would be in the interest of justice to provide one opportunity -- One opportunity granted subject to cost of Rs.10,000/-.

(Para 6-9)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 – Test Identification Parade (TIP) -- TIPs belong to the stage of investigation by the police -- It assures that investigation is proceeding in the right direction -- It is a rule of prudence which is required to be followed in cases where the accused is not known to the witness or the complainant – Evidence of a TIP is admissible u/s 9 of the Indian Evidence Act -- However, it is not a substantive piece of evidence -- Instead, it is used to corroborate the evidence given by witnesses before a court of law at the time of trial -- Therefore, TIPs, even if held, cannot be considered in all the cases as trustworthy evidence on which the conviction of an accused can be sustained.

(Para 26)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 162 -- Test Identification Parade (TIP) -- If identification in the TIP has taken place after the accused is shown to the witnesses, then not only is the evidence of TIP inadmissible, even an identification in a court during trial is meaningless -- Even a TIP conducted in the presence of a police officer is inadmissible in light of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(Para 29)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 -- Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (3 of 1984), Section 3(2)(e) -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 – Test Identification Parade (TIP) -- Investigating Officer stated that he has not taken any steps to ensure that the accused and the witnesses do not see each other -- Conduct of the TIP, coupled with the hovering presence of the police during the conduct of the TIP vitiated the entire process -- Trial Court as well as the High Court have committed a serious error in relying on the evidence of the TIP witnesses for convicting and sentencing the Appellants -- Conviction and sentencing are not sustainable.

(Para 56)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), Section 269 SS – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Cheque bounce case – Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal -- Rs. 5 lac payment in cash -- Financial capacity of the appellant to pay Rs.5 lakhs was doubtful, the entire payment was made in cash, Section 269 SS of Income Tax Act prohibits acceptance of deposit/loan in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/, different pen was used to sign and fill columns of cheque and no document was executed at the time of alleged payment of Rs.5 lakhs in cash – Trial court acquitted the accused -- Leave to appeal rejected.

(Para 10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 18 – Maintenance in two proceedings -- Appellant-wife has been granted two separate maintenance claims i.e. one at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month by the JMIC u/s 125 Cr.P.C., and the second at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month by the Civil Judge, Senior Division u/s 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Appellant-wife looking after her two children born out of the wedlock -- High Court while passing the impugned order has held that the maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month, granted to the appellant-wife, will also include Rs.3,000/- per month granted to her u/s 125 Cr.P.C – Appellant and the two children cannot sustain with this meagre amount of Rs.5,000/- -- Held, such an approach of the High Court is totally erroneous and cannot be sustained in law.

(Para 3-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 446-A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 399, 402, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Absence from Trial – Cancellation of bail -- Petitioner on bail was regularly appearing before the trial Court, however, on account of noting a wrong date, he absented and his bail/surety bonds were forfeited and non-bailable warrants were issued – Petitioner directed to appear before the trial Court within a period of 15 days and he will be released on bail subject to his furnishing fresh bail/surety bonds.

(Para 1-5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311, 482 – Cheque bounce case – Additional documents by complainant – Petitioner/ complainant moved an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for leading further evidence by producing additional documents -- No doubt, the complainant had already closed the evidence -- Purpose of trial is to elicit truth -- Trial should not be fair only to the accused but it should also be fair to the complainant/prosecution -- Petitioner permitted to lead the evidence by way of additional documents.

(Para 1-5)