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)

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 husband -- Marriage in May, 2014, wife committed suicide on 4th March, 2021 – In FIR allegations pertaining to harassment caused to the deceased on account of demand of dowry -- Material witnesses examined -- Two minor children are with the grandparents -- Allegations regarding demand of dowry are general in nature -- In the cross-examination, complainant deposed that he did not remember any specific date of harassment caused or demand of dowry made – No cash and vehicle was given in the marriage -- Out of 15 prosecution witnesses, 03 witnesses examined -- Nothing on record to show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents -- Court cannot ignore the fact that there are two minor children whose future is also at stake – Bail allowed.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 365/34, 367/34, 376(2)(g), 302/34, 201/34 IPC – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 137, 165 – Rape with murder – Fair trial – Cross-examination of witness -- Acquittal of accused – Out of the 49 witnesses examined by the prosecution, 10 material witnesses were not cross-examined and many other important witnesses were not adequately cross-examined by the defence counsel – Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act confers unbridled powers upon the trial courts to put any question at any stage to the witnesses to elicit the truth – Judge is not expected to be a passive umpire but is supposed to actively participate in the trial, and to question the witnesses to reach to a correct conclusion – Trial court acted as a passive umpire – Held, appellants-accused were deprived of their rights to have a fair trial, apart from the fact that the truth also could not be elicited by the trial court – Judgments and orders of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and the High Court are set aside – Appellants-accused acquitted by giving them a benefit of doubt.

(Para 34-37)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357(A) -- Acquittal of accused – Compensation to family – Right of – In view of Section 357(A) Cr.PC, the family members of the deceased-victim would be entitled to the compensation even though the accused have been acquitted.

(Para 35-37)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 260 tablets of Etizolam --  Contention that FIR registered within three months after issuance of notification and the petitioner was not aware about the same and in fact, salt Etizolam is antianxiety medicine, which is being prescribed by the doctor – Despite lapse of about 01 year, when the charges were framed, till date, no prosecution witness has been examined, therefore, there is no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future and in view of order dated 16.08.2022 passed in Gurpreet Singh’s case CRM-M-1212-2022, petition allowed -- Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 5-7)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120(B), 147, 364, 302, 120-B, 149, 201, 396 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 24, 29, 45, 47 -- Circumstantial evidence -- Extra-judicial confession – Handwriting expert -- When the extra judicial confession is not duly proved, or does not inspire confidence or is not corroborated by any other reliable evidence, the conviction could not be based solely on such weak piece of evidence -- Prosecution having not examined the handwriting expert for proving the handwritings of the accused no.1 contained in the Inland letter allegedly addressed to the PW-19, nor any expert’s opinion having been obtained, the High Court had rightly discarded the said piece of evidence.

(Para 8)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120(B), 147, 364, 302, 120-B, 149, 201, 396 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Circumstantial evidence -- Last seen together – Identification of accused after 6 months –When there was huge time gap of about more than six months between the date of the incident and the date of recording of statements of witnesses by the Investigating Officer, the Test Identification Parade would have assisted the police in identifying the accused seen by the PW-7, however no such TI Parade was held by the Investigating Officer -- Therefore, identification of the accused nos. 2 to 5 at the instance of these witnesses becomes very doubtful.

(Para 10)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120(B), 147, 364, 302, 120-B, 149, 201, 396 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 7 -- Circumstantial evidence -- Last seen together – It is well settled that if there is considerable time gap between the persons seeing together and the proximate time of the crime, the circumstances of last seen together, even if proved cannot clinchingly fasten the guilt of the accused.

(Para 11)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120(B), 147, 364, 302, 120-B, 149, 201, 396 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Circumstantial evidence -- Last seen together – Failure of the accused, in a case based on circumstantial evidence which included “last seen together theory”, to explain u/s 313 Cr.PC as to under what circumstances the victim suffered death, would also not be a ground to arrive at an irresistible conclusion that the accused were involved in the commission of the alleged crime.

(Para 12)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120(B), 147, 364, 302, 120-B, 149, 201, 396 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872),Section 45 -- Circumstantial evidence -- Identification of dead body -- Super-imposition report -- Since the super-imposition report was not supported by any other reliable medical evidence like a DNA report or post-mortem report, it would be very risky to convict the accused believing the identification of the dead body of the victim through the super-imposition test -- Dead body of the victim was discovered from the place shown by the accused, it is imperative on the part of the prosecution to prove that the dead body or the skeleton found at the instance of the accused was that of the victim and of none else.

(Para 13)

F. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120(B), 147, 364, 302, 120-B, 149, 201, 396 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8 – Circumstantial evidence -- Motive -- In a case of direct evidence, motive would not be relevant, in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of circumstances.

(Para 14)

G. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120(B), 147, 364, 302, 120-B, 149, 201, 396 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 7, 8, 24, 29, 45, 47, 106 – Murder -- Acquittal of accused -- Circumstantial evidence – Extra-judicial confession not corroborated by handwriting expert opinion – Last-seen theory after six months of incident without Test Identification parade by I.O. becomes doubtful – Super-imposition report was not supported by any other reliable medical evidence like a DNA report or post-mortem report of dead body – Witness to whom car of deceased sold become hostile – Evidence did not complete the chain to dispel the hypothesis of innocence of the appellants-accused -- Prosecution failed to establish through clinching, clear, cogent and consistent evidence, the chain of events, on the basis of which the guilt of the appellants-accused could be established – Judgements and orders of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court set aside -- Appeals allowed.

(Para 8-16)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 356, 379, 411, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary, without any undue influence or pressure – FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed, qua the petitioners only.

(Para 2, 5, 6)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(wa) – Dishonour of cheque -- Complainant – Victim -- A complainant in a case U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is not a victim as defined U/s 2(wa) of Cr.P.C.

(Para 19)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 378(4) – Cheque bounce complaint – Acquittal – Appeal -- A complainant in a case U/s 138 of NI Act is not entitled to file an appeal against acquittal according to the provision of Section 372 of Cr.P.C rather he may prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court invoking the provision of Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.

(Para 19)

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 19(1), 21, 27 – Reporting of offence -- Prompt and proper reporting of is of utmost importance -- Its failure on coming to know about the commission of any offence thereunder would defeat the very purpose and object of the Act -- Medical examination of the victim as also the accused would give many important clues in a case that falls under the POCSO Act – Clothes of the parties would also offer very reliable evidence in cases of rape – If it was committed by an unknown person, it would also enable the investigating agency to commence investigation without wasting time and ultimately to secure the arrest and medical examination of the culprit – Non-reporting of sexual assault against a minor child despite knowledge is a serious crime and more often than not, it is an attempt to shield the offenders of the crime of sexual assault -- A conjoint reading of Sections 19(1) and 21 of POCSO Act, such persons are also liable to be proceeded with, in accordance with law.

(Para 15, 22)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45 – Medical evidence in sexual offences -- In relation to sexual offences medical evidence has much corroborative value.

(Para 15)

C. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- POCSO case – Quashing of FIR and charge-sheet – Inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- If FIR and the materials collected disclose a cognizable offence and the final report filed u/s 173(2), Cr.P.C. on completion of investigation based on it would reveal that the ingredients to constitute an offence under the POCSO Act and a prima facie case against the persons named therein as accused, the truthfulness, sufficiency or admissibility of the evidence are not matters falling within the purview of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and undoubtedly they are matters to be done by the Trial Court at the time of trial.

(Para 18)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 164 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 145, 157 – Evidential value of statement u/s 161,  164 Cr.P.C. – Statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. are inadmissible in evidence and its use is limited for the purposes as provided under Sections 145 and 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -- As a matter of fact, statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. can also be used only for such purposes.

(Para 20)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 164-A, 173 – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Rape case Guidelines -- Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police vs. Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna, (2014) 8 SCC 913 exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution issued interim directions in the form of mandamus to all the Police Stations-in-Charge in the entire country to follow:

“10.1. Upon receipt of information relating to the commission of offence of rape, the investigating officer shall make immediate steps to take the victim to any Metropolitan/preferably Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of recording her statement under Section 164 CrPC. A copy of the statement under Section 164 CrPC should be handed over to the investigating officer immediately with a specific direction that the contents of such statement under Section 164 CrPC should not be disclosed to any person till charge-sheet/report under Section 173 CrPC is filed.

10.2. The investigating officer shall as far as possible take the victim to the nearest Lady Metropolitan/preferably Lady Judicial Magistrate.

10.3. The investigating officer shall record specifically the date and the time at which he learnt about the commission of the offence of rape and the date and time at which he took the victim to the Metropolitan/preferably Lady Judicial Magistrate as aforesaid.

10.4. If there is any delay exceeding 24 hours in taking the victim to the Magistrate, the investigating officer should record the reasons for the same in the case diary and hand over a copy of the same to the Magistrate.

10.5. Medical examination of the victim : Section 164-A CrPC inserted by Act 25 of 2005 in CrPC imposes an obligation on the part of investigating officer to get the victim of the rape immediately medically examined. A copy of the report of such medical examination should be immediately handed over to the Magistrate who records the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC.”

Supreme Court gave suggestion to every High Court that the appropriate modifications/amendments be made to the Criminal Practice/Trial Rules incorporating provisions consistent with the directions issued in the decisions in Shivanna’s case (2014) 8 SCC 913.

(Para 1-7)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 60(1)(i), Order 21 -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree -- Attachment of salary -- Salary of the JD-respondent cannot be attached for a period of more than 24 months where such attachment is made in execution of one and the same decree -- Argument of DH-petitioner that the salary should be continued to be attached cannot be accepted in view of the clear provisions of Section 60(1)(i) of CPC.

(Para 7)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 55 Order 21 Rule 30  -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award/ decree – Arrest of Judgment Debtor/ JD -- Argument that the JD-respondent ought to be arrested for non-compliance of the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat cannot be accepted in view of the fact that arrest would be a measure of last resort and in the case, some property of the JD-respondent already stands attached and the Executing Court has directed the JD-respondent to file an affidavit stating all the particulars regarding his moveable and immoveable properties.

(Para 7)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 – Cheque bounce case -- Award of Lok Adalat in complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Execution of award -- Award passed by the Lok Adalat would be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court executable by the Civil Court -- There can be no quarrel with the said proposition of law.

(Para 10)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Cause of action – Demand Notice – Presumption of service -- Incorrect address -- Mere issuance of notice would not by itself give rise to a cause of action, same would arise only when the notice has been communicated to the drawer of the cheque and who fails to liquidate the cheque amount within the stipulated period -- Presumption of receipt of notice by drawer of the cheque can be raised only if the notice has been dispatched through registered post, to his correct address and such inference cannot be drawn if the notice has been sent on the incorrect address of the drawer of the cheque.

(Para 8)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing of – Demand Notice – Service of – Ground of -- Whether the notice of demand has been actually received by the petitioner/accused can be determined only during the trial of the case -- Argument that the impugned complaint deserves to be quashed on the aforesaid ground is, therefore, without any merit.

(Para 11)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing of -- Cognizance by Magistrate – Wrong mentioning of particulars of cheques and Memos -- Errors made by the ld. trial Magistrate in recording the particulars of the cheques and the memos cannot be termed as typographical in nature -- These errors are relating to essential aspects of the case and the same clearly reflects that the learned trial Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, has approached the case in a mechanical and negligent manner -- Impugned order passed by the learned trial Magistrate clearly reflects non-application of mind on his part and, as such, is not sustainable in law -- Impugned order, set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trial Court with a direction to pass a fresh order of cognizance on the basis of the material available before him after hearing the complainant/ respondent.

(Para 13-16)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 34, 376, 377, 406, 498-A, 506, 511 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Section 376 IPC/ Rape – Section 377 IPC/ Unnatural offence – Compromise quashing of FIR  -- Court is conscious of the fact that Sections 376/ 377 I.P.C. are heinous offences and non-compoundable -- But in the peculiar facts and circumstances and in the larger interest of both the parties and to secure the ends of justice, Court deemed it appropriate to use its discretion u/s 482 Cr.P.C in favour of the parties – FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 10, 11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused -- Power of Court -- Power u/s 319 Cr.P.c. is discretionary and extra ordinary, which is to be exercised very sparingly only when strong and cogent evidence has been led against a person, who is sought to be summoned -- Court must be satisfied from the evidence collected during the enquiry or in the trial that the person sought to be summoned as an additional accused has committed an offence for which he deserves to be tried alongwith already arraigned accused.

(Para 7)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 3, 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – POCSO matter -- Rape -- Summoning of additional accused – In the complaint there is no allegation whatsoever against MK (sister of main accused/ JS) – Only reference in the FIR is that MK is the sister of JS and she used to talk with the prosecutrix on phone -- In the statement recorded u/s 164 of the Code, the prosecutrix stated that MK used to say that she wants that the prosecutrix should become her Bhabi (sister-in-law), and that the prosecutrix revealed about the incident to MK but she assured her that there is nothing to worry as JS would get married to her -- However, in her deposition, the prosecutrix has stated that, it was MK, who had called her on phone and forced her to accompany them on a trip, but when she reached the hotel, she found that MK was not present there – It is evident that there is a consistent change in the version of the incident by the prosecutrix to enmesh the sister of JS in the criminal case -- Parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh’s case (2014) 3 SCC 92 and Manjeet Singh’s case 2021 SCC Online 632 are not fulfilled and the order passed by the Trial Court declining the application for summoning MK does not call for any interference -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 8-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Proclaimed person –Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Offence u/s 406/420 of IPC compounded by ld. JMIC – No fruitful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings under Section 174-A of IPC -- Petition allowed and FIR under Section 174-A of IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed and also the orders whereby petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed person also set aside.

(Para 10, 11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 379-B, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Snatching case – Compromise quashing of FIR – Compromise found to be genuine, without any pressure or undue influence – FIR and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise, ordered to be quashed.

(Para 4, 10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 21(C), 29, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case -- Commercial quantity – Bail by High Court after one year custody – Large quantity of contraband weighing about 13 kgs of morphine recovered – In the face of the mandate of Section 37 of the Act, the High Court could not and ought not to have released the accused on bail – Appeals allowed, view taken by the High Court set aside,  appellants ordered to be taken in custody forthwith – Charge-sheet has been filed, Trial Court to take up the matter and conclude the proceedings as early as possible and preferably within six months.

(Para 3-10)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3), 197 -- Investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. -- Quashing of -- Cognizance by court – Power of – Nature of -- Even at the stage of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., while directing an investigation, there has to be an application of mind by the Magistrate -- Court concerned cannot act in a mechanical and mindless manner -- Application of mind should be reflected in the order -- Mere statement, that he (Presiding Officer) has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant as reflected in the impugned order will not be sufficient and on this sole ground the impugned order being vitiated, deserves to be set aside.

(Para 26)

B. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 8, 11, 12, 13(1)d, 13(2), 15, 19 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Corruption case -- Cognizance by Magistrate/ Special court -- Sanction from Government – Requirement of – Investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. by impugned order – Quashing of -- Held, no Court can take congnizance of offences punishable u/s 7, 11, 13 and 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the public servants without previous sanction of the concerned Government --  Order directing investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be passed in the absence of a valid sanction u/s 19 of the Act, 1988 -- No such previous sanction/approval has been sought by the complainant to prosecute the petitioners -- Consequently, the impugned order being illegal set aside qua the petitioners.

(Para 21, 25, 27)

C. Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 3, 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Money Laundering case -- Investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. by impugned order – Quashing of -- Held, police cannot investigate offences punishable u/s 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act unless specifically authorized by the Central Government in this regard -- Further, the police cannot take cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act unless specifically authorized by the Central Government by general or a special order -- Respondent No.2 failed to produce copy of any such general or special order passed by the Central Government -- Impugned order being illegal set aside qua the petitioners.

(Para 21, 22)

D. Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (41 of 1963), Section 3, 6, 12 – Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (8 of 1975), Section 3, 10,11, 12 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) –Investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. by impugned order – Quashing of -- Sanction is required to prosecute the public servants under various provisions of Haryana Development and Regulations of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 – No such previous sanction/ approval has been sought by the complainant to prosecute the petitioners -- Consequently, the impugned order being illegal is hereby set aside qua the petitioners.

(Para 21, 27, 28)

E. Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (14 of 1981), Section 21,22, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43 -- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986), Section 11,15, 16,17, 19, 25 -- Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974), Section 20, 32, 33, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 45-A, 46, 47, 48, 49 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Cognizance by Court – Power of -- Investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. by impugned order – Quashing of -- No Court can take cognizance of offences punishable under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; the Environment (Protection) Act 1986; the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1974 except on a complaint made by a Board or any officer authorized in this behalf -- No prior notice was issued by respondent No.2 to prosecute the petitioners as required -- Impugned order being illegal set aside qua the petitioners.

(Para 21, 22, 27)

F. Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (16 of 1994), Section 250, 251, 260, 265, 309, 310, 380, 382, 384 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Cognizance by court – Power of -- Court cannot take cognizance of offences under Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 except on the complaint made by the competent authority.

(Para 21)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque by husband – Quashing of complaint -- Maintainability of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act against wife/ petitioner – Cheque not from joint account -- The three accused do not constitute a Company or a firm or Association of individuals as contemplated u/s 141 of N.I. Act -- Hence, petitioner cannot be made accused for dishonor of the cheque issued by her husband and he alone can be prosecuted for the same – Proceedings qua petitioner/ wife quashed.

(Para 5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 205, 406 -- Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – Transfer of complaint – Exemption form appearance -- Complaint cannot be transferred as per the convenience of the accused -- Petitioner is a woman and a senior citizen, therefore, she can always seek exemption from personal appearance -- If an application is made by the petitioner for grant of exemption, the learned trial Judge shall favorably consider the same -- Trial Judge shall compel the petitioner to appear only when her presence is absolutely mandatory for the conduct of the trial – Transfer petition dismissed.

(Para 2)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 -- Transfer of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act --  West Bengal to Kerala -- Petitioner states that the entire transaction of loan, for which the cheque was alleged to have been issued, had taken place at Calicut, Kerala – Jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court at Calcutta (Kolkata), West Bengal is invoked as the cheque was presented in a Bank, which was within the jurisdiction of that Court – In such circumstances, it would be expedient for the ends of justice to transfer the complaint to the Court at Kerala – Petition allowed.

(Para 2-7)

A. Abatement – Abate – Meaning of -- Term ‘abatement’ or ‘abate’ has not been defined in Cr.P.C. -- Its dictionary meaning has to be looked into – In criminal proceedings ‘discontinuation of such proceedings owing to the death of the accused/convict pending such proceedings’.

(Para 15)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 394 -- Abatement of appeal – Acquittal -- Abatement is different from acquittal.

(Para 15)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Abatement of appeal – Effect on other accused – Unlawful assembly -- Mere fact that seven out of the ten convicts died, either during the pendency of Appeal before the High Court or during the pendency of this appeal, could not be a reason, by that itself, to canvass non applicability of the provision for constructive/vicarious liability.

(Para 16)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 149 – Murder – Unlawful assembly -- Vicarious liability -- Appellant was not charged with offence punishable u/s 302, IPC simpliciter, he was convicted u/s 302 and Section 149 -- Appellant cannot escape from the constructive/vicarious liability for the act committed by any one of the members of that assemblage by virtue of Section 149, IPC if the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit murder and not causing grievous injury.

(Para 17)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 149 – Unlawful assembly -- Object of Section 149 is to make specific that person whose case comes within its gamut cannot be permitted to put forth a defence that he did not, with his own hand, commit the offence committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly.

(Para 17)

F. Evidence law -- Effect of non-recovery of weapons – Held, non-recovery of the weapons cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of the injured eye witnesses.

(Para 19)

G. Evidence law – Witness of sons of deceased -- Evidence of injured witnesses cannot be disbelieved or brushed aside solely because they are the sons of the deceased.

(Para 19)

H. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 300, 302, 304 – Culpable homicide – Murder -- In order to make culpable homicide as murder the act by which death is caused should fall not only under any one or more of clauses firstly to fourthly under Section 300, IPC but they should also not fall under any of the five exceptions to Section 300, IPC.

(Para 21)

I. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 300, 302, 304 – Culpable homicide – Murder -- Appellant failed to bring the case within any of the five exceptions to Section 300, IPC -- Absolutely no question of considering the contentions that the offence of culpable homicide falls either under 304 (Part I) or 304 (Part II).

(Para 21)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing of -- Goods purchased by petitioner and cheque was also issued by him – Change in management by agreement and previous liability taken over by someone – Petitioner seeking quashing on the ground of change in management – Held, shifting of liability after issuance of the cheque has no significance, since penal provisions would attack against the person who issued the cheque -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 3-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 324, 323, 148, 149, Cross case under Sections 452, 324, 323, 379-B, 148, 149 – House trespass, unlawful assembly and snatching -- Version Cross-version case – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Compromise arrived at with the intervention of the respectables and family members and the parties have decided to keep harmony between them and to live peacefully in future -- Hence, it would be in the interest of justice that parties are allowed to compromise the matter – FIR and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed, on the basis of compromise.

(Para 9, 10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 -- Transfer of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Complaints in Punjab, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan -- Case of the petitioner that the complaints have been filed u/s 138 at different places by the respondents who are total strangers -- According to her, it is an offshoot of a matrimonial dispute and it is her case that the complaints have been orchestrated by her husband – Cases transferred to the competent Court at New Delhi.

(Para 6-8)

A. Circumstantial evidence -- In a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court has to scrutinize each and every circumstantial possibility, which is placed before it in the form of an evidence and the evidence must point towards only one conclusion, which is the guilt of the accused – A very heavy duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt.

(Para 12)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 25 – Constitution of India, Article 20(3) – Murder -- Confession before police – Videography of statement by police – Recovery therefrom -- Evidential value – Conviction by Session Court affirmed by High Court – Setting aside of -- Entire case of the prosecution is built upon the confessional/voluntary statements made by the accused persons before the police and the recovery of the alleged weapon of murder recovered at the pointing out of the accused and the recovery of alleged stolen gold material from a jewelry shop, again, on pointing out of the accused – They confessed to as many as 24 crimes committed by them -- Their confessions of how they planned and executed the murders has been captured on a video, which was also exhibited before the court – Session Court and High Court taken this evidence of voluntary statements made by the accused and hence admitted it as evidence -- Held, both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the accused and their videography statements -- Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, an accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself -- Again, under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a confessional statement given by an accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence -- Appeals allowed, the order of the Sessions Judge and the High Court set aside, the appellants ordered to be released from jail.

(Para 13, 17)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 309 – Examination-in-chief of witness – Postponement of cross-examination – Power of Trial Court -- Mandate of law postulate that examination-in-chief followed with cross-examination is to be recorded either on the same day or on the day following -- In other words, there should not be any ground for adjournment in recording the examination-in-chief/cross-examination of the prosecution witness, as the case may be. Vinod Kumar’s case (2015) 3 SCC 220 relied.

(Para 2)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366-A, 376 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – POCSO matter -- Rape – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Subsequent to the registration of the FIR and after attaining the age of majority, the petitioner has solemnized marriage with the victim/respondent no.3 -- FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed, however, qua the petitioner.

(Para 1-3, 13)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195 -- Violation of District Magistrate order – Contempt of lawful authority of public servant -- Cognizance on police report – Cognizance on complaint by public authority -- Since the violation of the prohibitory order issued by the District Magistrate, did tantamount to contempt of lawful authority of public servant(s), thereupon an offence constituted u/s 188 of the IPC, became aroused resultantly fall within the ambit of sub-Section (1) of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. – Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, could not take cognizance, upon the police report, but could assume cognizance only on a complaint in writing being made before him, by the public servant concerned, and/or by some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.

(Para 3)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195, 468, 473 – Cognizance on complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. – Limitation – Institution of a complaint on 15.05.2018, u/s 195 of the Cr.P.C., and, that too, after more than one year elapsing since the crime event taking place, at the crime site, did within the ambit of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., completely oust the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh to either assume cognizance thereons, and/or to issue summons, upon the petitioners, to face a charge for the commission of an offence punishable u/s 188 of the IPC -- Though, the above period of limitation is condonable within the domain of Section 473 of the Cr.P.C., but impugned summoning order does not reveal, that the prosecution adopted the above provision, resultantly the delay remained unexplained -- Petition allowed, proceedings quashed.

(Para 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 326, 394, 341, 427, 506, 324, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Voluntary causing hurt in committing robbery – Compromise quashing of FIR – Fact that the compromise will bring peace and harmony between the parties, FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, quashed, qua the petitioners.

(Para 1, 6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintenance – Deposition of wife – Non-cross-examination by husband – Effect of -- Right of the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses of the appellant-original applicant was closed, as he had failed to appear before the Family Court despite the issuance of warrants -- Allegations made by the appellant-wife in her evidence before the Court had remained unchallenged and, therefore, there was no reason for the Family Court to disbelieve her version -- Family Court could not have passed the order believing the oral submissions of the respondent.

(Para 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintenance – Able-bodied husband -- Respondent being an able-bodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child -- Rs.10,000/- per month awarded to the appellant-wife from the date of filing maintenance petition over and above the maintenance allowance of Rs. 6,000/- granted by the Family Court to the son.

(Para 13)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 157(1) -- Delay in forwarding FIR to Magistrate -- Effect of -- Delay in forwarding the FIR may certainly indicate the failure of one of the external checks to determine whether the FIR was manipulated later or whether it was registered either to fix someone other than the real culprit or to allow the real culprit to escape -- While every delay in forwarding the FIR may not necessarily be fatal to the case of the prosecution, Courts may be duty bound to see the effect of such delay on the investigation and even the creditworthiness of the investigation.

(Para 61)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 157(1) -- Delay in forwarding FIR to Magistrate – Effect of -- Section 157(1) of the Code requires the officer-in-charge of the police station to send the FIR, “forthwith” -- Delay in transmission of the FIR to the court, may not, per se, be fatal, without anything more -- But in the case on hand, the delay was not small -- FIR said to have been registered on 08.03.2012 was received by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 13.03.2012 -- It is true that no question was put in cross-examination to the Investigation Officer about this delay -- But the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is untrustworthy, particularly on the question of the origin and genesis of the first information report -- Therefore the inordinate delay in the FIR reaching the jurisdictional court assumes significance -- Word "forthwith' in Section 157(1) of the Code is to be understood in the context of the given facts and circumstances of each case and a straight-jacket formula cannot be applied in all cases -- But where ocular evidence is found to be unreliable and thus unacceptable, a long delay has to be taken note of by the Court.

(Para 61-66)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 157(1) -- Delay in forwarding FIR to Magistrate – Effect of -- Mandate of Section 157(1) of the Code being clear, the prosecution is expected to place on record the basic foundational facts, such as, the Officer who took the first information report to the jurisdictional court, the authority which directed such a course of action and the mode by which it was complied -- Explaining the delay is a different aspect than placing the material in compliance of the Code.

(Para 68)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 376 -- Rape with Murder – Medical examination of accused – Requirement of -- In cases where the victim of rape is alive and is in a position to testify in court, it may be possible for the prosecution to take a chance by not medically examining the accused -- But in cases where the victim is dead and the offence is sought to be established only by circumstantial evidence, medical evidence assumes great importance -- Failure of the prosecution to produce such evidence, despite there being no obstacle from the accused or anyone, will certainly create a gaping hole in the case of the prosecution and give rise to a serious doubt on the case of the prosecution -- Section 53A enables the prosecution to obtain a significant piece of evidence to prove the charge -- Failure of the prosecution in this case to subject the appellant to medical examination is certainly fatal to the prosecution case especially when the ocular evidence is found to be not trustworthy -- Failure to obtain the report of the Forensic Sciences Laboratory on the blood/semen stain on the salwar worn by the victim, compounds the failure of the prosecution.

(Para 80)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 376 -- Rape with Murder – Scrutiny of evidence – Acquittal of accused -- When the offence is heinous, the Court is required to put the material evidence under a higher scrutiny -- Sufficient care has not been taken in the assessment of the statements made by P.Ws. 1 to 3 by Trail Court and High Court -- No one spoke as to who sent the FIR to the court and when it was sent -- Strangely even the copy of the post-mortem report was admittedly received by SHO on the 13.03.2012 though the post mortem was conducted on the 09.03.2012 -- It was the same date on which the FIR reached the Court -- These factors certainly create a strong suspicion on the story as projected by the prosecution – By fixing culpability upon the appellant without any shred of evidence which will stand the scrutiny, the prosecution has done injustice to the appellant -- Court cannot make someone, a victim of injustice, to compensate for the injustice to the victim of a crime -- Appellant is so poor that he could not afford to engage a lawyer even in the Sessions Court, service of an advocate was provided as amicus -- In cases of such nature, the responsibility of the Court becomes more onerous – Court not convinced that the guilt of the appellant stood established beyond reasonable doubt -- Appeals allowed and the conviction and penalty are set aside -- Appellant shall be released forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other case.

(Para 83-85)