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)

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)