Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B, 498-A, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Dowry death case – Proclaimed absconder -- Accused was not in India at the time of incident – Contention that service of summons never effected/ co-accused acquitted -- On interim direction petitioner has surrendered before the trial Court, joined the proceedings and has been released on interim bail – As such the purpose for which the proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. have been initiated stand achieved and the petitioner no longer remains an absconder – Bail order made absolute.

(Para 7-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Third anticipatory bail application – Maintainability of -- On the third occasion, the learned Judge acceded to the request of respondent No. 2 and granted anticipatory bail, without referring to crucial facts noted in the status report -- None of the reasons cited can be said to be just basis to show indulgence to respondent No. 2 -- Successive anticipatory bail applications ought not to be entertained and more so, when the case diary and the status report, clearly indicated that the accused (respondent No. 2) is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation – Specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by the same Judge – Impugned judgment and order set aside, I.O. is free to take respondent No. 2 into custody forthwith.

(Para 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6, 8 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376-AB, 354A(I) – Rape case – Recall of minor witness/victim – Alleged that letter by victim stating about registration of wrong complaint -- Considering the fact that the victim/PW as duly supported the prosecution version and has proved the original complaint (Ex. P-1), which is in her own handwriting, and also in view of the fact that medical evidence duly supports the allegations of penetrative sexual assault on the victim, Court find no ground to allow the application to recall the victim/PW – Petition dismissed.

(Para 1,2,10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Declaration of Proclaimed Person – Challenge to -- Complaint is u/s 138 of the N.I.Act, 1881, which is a bailable offence, petition disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may appear before the learned trial Court on or before 27.01.2021 -- On his doing so, he shall be enlarged on bail by the trial Court subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to its satisfaction.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 34 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Attempt to murder – Compromise quashing of FIR – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court -- After going through the record of the case, Court opined it a fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C., so as to secure the ends of justice because the parties have arrived at an settlement, out of the Court, by way of compromise -- FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, ordered to be quashed.

(Para 5-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 323, 34 – Conviction in Murder – Juvenile (17 years 1 month) at the time of incident – Sentence of more than two years undergone -- Appellant being juvenile, conviction order passed by the Trial Court and the impugned judgment passed by the High Court affirming such conviction deserve to be set aside -- Since the appellant has already been in custody for more than two years, no reason to send the matter back to the Juvenile Justice Board – Appeal allowed.

(Para 5-11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case – Compromise between parties -- Proclaimed offender/ person -- FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Quashing of -- Respondent/complainant withdrew his complaint -- In such circumstances, the continuation of the prosecution of the petitioner u/s 174-A IPC would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law – Order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender and FIR registered u/s 174-A IPC are both quashed along with all subsequent proceedings.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 365, 323, 506, 142, 427, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Abduction case – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Parties on intervention of respectables have decided to patch up their difference.  -- Nothing to show that nature of the injuries were serious -- To meet the ends of justice and that no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the trial, FIR alongwith all consequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 9)

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 (57 of 1994), Section 6, 23, 27 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Pre-natal Sex determination and sex-selective abortion --  Regular bail -- Parity with co-accused – Allegations in the FIR and the charge sheet, as well the disclosure statements made by the petitioner and the co-accused u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reveal that prima facie, the petitioner had a more active role in conducting the alleged illegal medical practices of sex determination and sex-selective abortion -- Whereas the alleged role of the co-accused was limited to merely picking up and dropping off the petitioner’s clients -- No grounds for granting parity with the co-accused to the petitioner.

(Para 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), section 482 -- Rape case – Compromise quashing of FIR – Complainant solemnized marriage with petitioner – Keeping in view the report by the Trial Court that the parties have genuinely entered into a compromise and all the disputes between the parties have been resolved, it would not be in the interest of justice to continue the criminal proceedings -- Resultantly, FIR as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, stand quashed.

(Para 7,11,12)

Constitution of India, Article 32 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357-A – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 -- Writ jurisdiction -- Rape victim – Rights of -- Held, petitioner being a rape victim deserves treatment as rape victim by all the authorities – A rape victim suffers not only a mental trauma but also discrimination from the society – Petitioner has two sons and one daughter – One son major, two children of the petitioner are still minor – Section 357A of the Cr.P.C provides procedure for grant of compensation, the petitioner had already made application to seek compensation under the above Scheme and payment of compensation has already been made. Directions given :

-- The Deputy Commissioner, to take measure to ensure that minor children of the petitioner are provided free education in any of the Government Institutions in District where the petitioner is residing till they attain the age of 14 years.

-- The Deputy Commissioner may also consider the case of the petitioner for providing house under Prime Minister Awas Yojna or any other Central or State Scheme in which petitioner could be provided accommodation.

-- The Senior Superintendent of Police, and other competent authority shall review the Police security provided to the petitioner from time to time and take such measures as deem fit and proper.

-- The District Legal Services Authority on representation made by the petitioner shall render legal services to the petitioner as may be deemed fit to safeguard the interest of the petitioner.

(Para 16-19, 25-27)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 307, 349, 120(B), 101, 143, 147, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 4, 25 -- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (22 of 1951), Sections 37(1)(3), 135 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Application for regular bail – Interim direction for producing CCTV footage – Legality of -- Impugned order indicates that the directions regarding the CCTV footage were made by the High Court on submissions by Respondents-accused before the High Court that they wished to rely on the same to prove their non-participation in the alleged incident – Held, it was not appropriate directions which will have a direct bearing upon the trial -- Direction of the High Court directing the IO to examine the CCTV footage and to submit a report, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside.

(Para 4, 9, 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Snatching of cash of Rs. 9500/- and ATM – Regular bail – Contention that Test Identification parade was done by force -- Authenticity of the test identification parade is a debatable issue and it is subject matter of trial -- Further, investigation in the case is already complete and challan stands presented on 20.10.2020 and that the petitioner is not involved in any other case -- It is also not the case of the State that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he may influence the witnesses or tamper with any evince – Petition for regular bail allowed.

(Para 6, 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 440, 482 – Surety for Bail -- Personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount -- Petitioner ready to furnish personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- by depositing Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) cash in the court as he is not having two local sureties and prays for modification – Order modified to the extent that the petitioner would furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and that too by depositing Rs.1,00,000/- in cash with the Court concerned -- Condition imposing furnishing of two local sureties by the petitioner vide impugned order is quashed.

(Para 3-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-A, 379-B, 201 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Snatching case -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Both the parties appeared before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate for recording their statements in the context of genuineness of the compromise -- In view of compromise between the parties, there would be remote and negligible chances of the witnesses coming forward to depose in favour of the prosecution version -- There would be remote chances of conviction – F.I.R. as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.

(Para 4-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Proclaimed person -- Service through proclamation for 21.01.2020 -- On 21.01.2020, the Court observed that since the period of 30 days had not elapsed, the case was further adjourned to 14.02.2020 for appearance of the petitioner --  On 14.02.2020, the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person – Held, while adjourning the case vide order dated 21.01.2020, mandatory period of 30 days could have been granted to the petitioner to appear before the trial Court -- Impugned order dated 14.02.2020 is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C – Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 14.02.2020 quashed.

(Para 2-7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 72, 73, 82 -- Non-bailable warrants at the stage of Investigaiton -- Power of Magistrate -- Non-bailable warrants can be issued for procuring attendance of a person before the Court and on police remand being granted, investigation can be carried out from such accused -- Petitioner has been evading her arrest at the hands of the police and has also evaded execution of warrants for her arrest issued by the Court -- Court can proceed to issue proclamation u/s 82 of the Code -- Issuance of non-bailable warrants by the Court, being sine-qua-non for initiation of proceedings u/s 82 of the Code, the Court was fully competent to issue non-bailable warrants.

(Para 2, 15)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Proclaimed Offender – Detailed order – Satisfaction of court -- Requirement of -- While declaring a Proclaimed Offender, a lengthy detailed order is not required to be passed and it is the material facts as regards compliance of procedure which are required to be noticed before proceeding to pass an order under Section 82(4) of the Code -- Satisfaction of the Court for issuance of proclamation would be recorded when an order initiating proclamation proceedings is passed u/s Section 82(1) of the Code.

(Para 15)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused – Dismissal of application -- General allegations leveled against all the four accused to the extent that they had given beatings to deceased with the help of sticks -- It is not uncommon that, the aggrieved party makes an attempt to rope in the maximum number of accused especially ladies from the opposite side so as to settle scores -- When the complainant stepped into witness-box, tried to improve the version by stating that respondent No.2 had given a slap to the complainant – During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of several villagers and came to a conclusion that respondent No.2 was innocent -- Impugned order upheld, revision petition dismissed.

(Para 7-9)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d) – Corruption case – Quantum of sentence – Reduction of -- Out of two years sentence imposed by the learned Special Court, confirmed by the High Court, the appellant has already undergone approximately one year and one-month and considering the fact that the appellant is a senior citizen aged about 70 years and that he is already dismissed from service – Sentence of two years R.I. reduced to one year and one-month R.I.

(Para 6, 7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 391 -- Two appeals i.e. one by accused and one by complainant – Appellate Court allowed additional evidence in complainant’s appeal, it could not have decided the appeals at that stage -- Both appeals necessarily had to await the adducing of additional evidence so that the appellate Court could take the same into account while deciding them comprehensively.

(Para 17)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 391 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 500 – Defamation complaint case -- Additional evidence -- Trial Court had not used coercive measures to secure the presence of the concerned Clerk of Jagbani Newspaper so as to determine the link between the advertisement and the accused, if any, and that the record maintained by the office of Jagbani Newspaper was also not produced -- It was in these circumstances that the appellate Court concluded that the trial Court had closed the evidence in a hasty manner and allowed the complainant's application u/s 391 Cr.P.C. -- Targeted case for early disposal – In such circumstances, the consent of the complainant cannot be held against him -- Appellate Court was always at liberty to exercise power independently u/s 391 Cr.P.C., once it felt that such evidence was necessary and recorded reasons therefor.

(Para 18-21)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 391 – Additional evidence in appeal – Delay in application – Effect of -- Application was filed in 2017, long after the institution of the appeal in the 2013 -- Delay cannot be held to be fatal -- Appellate Court had suo motu power to exercise discretion u/s 391 Cr.P.C. -- Therefore, delay in the filing of the application does not vitiate the opinion formed by the appellate Court.

(Para 22)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case -- Warrant remained unexecuted as accused-petitioner shifted – Proclamation on same address – Legality of – FIR u/s 174A of IPC – Sustainability of -- Without any basis, the Court formed an opinion that the petitioner is intentionally avoiding service and that he is either absconding or concealing himself -- Rather the Court was duty bound to ask the complainant to furnish his fresh address and ensure that the petitioner was duly served before commencing with the coercive process -- Held, trial Court was not required to invoke the provisions of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. -- Declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed person, and the consequent registration of the impugned FIR cannot be sustained.

(Para 10-12)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed person – Settlement between parties – Quashing of FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Entire amount of the cheque in dispute stands paid -- Complainant does not have any objection, in case, the impugned order and FIR are quashed -- Once there is an amicable settlement between the parties and the main petition u/s 138 of N.I. Act, wherein accused was declared as a proclaimed person, stands withdrawn, proceedings u/s 174-A IPC cannot be permitted to continue -- Impugned order and FIR u/s 174-A, IPC quashed along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

(Para 13, 14)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 35 --  Date of birth -- Recitals of the admission and withdrawal register are admissible in evidence, as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(Para 18)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(3) -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 154, 155 -- Hostile witness – Evidential value -- Reliance upon other evidence -- Simply on the score that witnesses did not support the prosecution version in the Court, does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that no such occurrence had taken place -- Their testimonies, as such, cannot be discarded in toto – Testimony of the hostile witnesses can be relied upon by the prosecution, to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version and cannot be treated as washed off the records -- There is no legal bar to base conviction of the accused, upon such kind of testimony, if corroborated by other reliable evidence.

-- While facing cross-examination, the prosecutrix has identified her signatures on Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and she has also admitted about having undergone medical examination.

-- Though, she had stated about the statement Ex.P4 before the Magistrate, to be an outcome of pressure of the police but however, no reason, as such, has been assigned, as to why the police intend to falsely implicate the appellant by making the prosecutrix as tool.

-- No bitterness or animosity at the behest of the police, towards the accused-appellant, as such, is coming forth -- Neither the accused, in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., has stated about the reason for false implication.

-- MLR, opinion has been given that-'possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out and depends on semen and DNA analysis of supplied cloth and swabs.'

-- As per conclusion in DNA report-The Autosomal STR analysis indicates that DNA profile of seminal stains on source of item no.3B (Cotton Swab) and item No.4 (Salwar) is matching with the DNA Profile of Irshad (Source of item No.6).

Result of genuine DNA test is scientifically adequate and reliance upon the same can be laid to establish the connectivity of the wrong doer -- Thus, in the light of such medical evidence brought on record, sexual assault upon the prosecutrix, as such, and the role of the appellant, is established -- When linkage of the appellant, as such, through scientific manner is coming forth, it was incumbent upon the appellant, to lead sufficient evidence to rebut the legal presumption u/s 29 of the POCSO Act, operating against him -- Convection u/s 4 POCSO Act and Section 376 (3) IPC, upheld.

(Para 22-30)

C. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 42 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(3) -- Section 376(3) – Retrospective effect of penal provisions -- Sentence awarded u/s 376(3) IPC, while considering the same to be greater in degree than Section 4 of the POCSO Act -- Amendment in the IPC, thereby, adding Section 376(3) IPC, received assent of Hon'ble President of India on 11.08.2018 and in the light of the same, it is submitted that no retrospective effect can be given to this provision, in view of the occurrence in question (allegedly) having taken place on 02.06.2018 – Held, submission so made is not tenable, as the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, was deemed to have come into force on 21.04.2018 and that being so, it was in force at the time of taking of place of occurrence in question on 02.06.2018 – Ld. trial Court has imposed the minimum sentence (20 years RI), so provided in the aforesaid Section 376(3) IPC and the same is just and reasonable.

(Para 30)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 436(2) – NDPS case – Non-appearance on one date – Cancellation of bail – Non-bailable warrants -- Legality of -- Trial Court proceeded to pass the extreme order for solitary absence of petitioner, who was on regular bail since 29.05.2019 -- Accused or his counsel can be prevented by sufficient reasons and every such absence cannot be necessarily construed as a deliberate and willful absence -- Explanation offered by the petitioner appears to be probable and therefore, the same is accepted -- Impugned order and subsequent issuance of warrants (if any) set aside.

(Para 5, 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. – Procedural lapse – Setting aside of -- Proclamation, issued on 24.11.2015 for 11.12.2015, does not fulfill the requirement of Section 82 as the period is less than the prescribed period of 30 days -- Bare fact that on 11.12.2015, the Court adjourned the trial so as to complete the requisite period of 30 days and declared the petitioner as proclaimed offender on 04.01.2016 also does not meet the mandate of the provision -- Petitioner was abroad -- No material to show that any effort was made to serve the accused-petitioner through the Ministry of External Affairs – Held, impugned order has been passed in violation of the procedure and provisions of Section 82 of the Code and the same cannot be sustained.

(Para 11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 --  Vehicle ordered to be released on superdari – Challenge by NCB – Release of vehicle with conditions that superdar shall not change its colour and condition -- Car remained with revisionist/ NCB for about eight months, which was sufficient time for the investigation -- In case the NCB finds that the car in question is required to be scrutinized or examined for the purpose of further investigation qua the other two accused against whom complaint has not been filed so far, then it can move appropriate application before the trial Court, which shall then direct the superdar to produce the car in the Court, the temporary custody of which can then be given to Narcotic Control Bureau – No reason to set aside the impugned order.

(Para 5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 306, 116 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Abetment to suicide – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably – Compromise is in interest of peace and tranquility in the society and for such like reasons high Court can quash the FIR and ancillary proceedings exercising power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- Petition allowed and the FIR along with ancillary proceedings quashed.

(Para 7-9)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 396 -- Dacoity with murder -- Acquittal in – No test identification parade – Accused identified first time in court – Finger prints at place of occurrence – Value of – Child eye witness 5 years old (PW5) -- Both accused were unknown faces to PW5, and were not subjected to any Test Identification -- Apart from identification by PW5 in Court for the first time, there is no other material to establish their presence -- Thus, even if Court accept that fingerprints lifted from the house of the deceased could be associated with the said two accused, that by itself, in the absence of any substantive piece of evidence, cannot be made the basis of their conviction -- These accused are therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt -- Orders of conviction and sentence recorded against them set aside.

(Para 16, 35)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8, 27, 118, 134 -- Child witness – Corroboration of -- Perspective from which the evidence of a child witness is to be considered -- “corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence” is a well-accepted principle.

(Para 22)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 396 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8, 27, 118, 134 -- Dacoity with murder -- Acquittal in – 5 year old Child eye witness -- A chhuri or knife was said to have been recovered upon being pointed by accused/HO -- In the absence of any memorandum, the trial court rejected the theory that such recovery would be admissible u/s 27 of the Act -- It was however observed that such recovery would be admissible u/s 8 of the Act -- Not enough to sustain the finding of guilt -- PW-2 in his cross-examination reveals that he made no attempts to talk to the police though he asserted in his examination-in-chief that in the morning he was sure that the culprits were accused/ HO and his associates, version given by PW2 is, therefore, not free from doubt -- Evidence of PW2 also contains inherent inconsistencies -- Sample fingerprints of accused H.O. did not match with any of the fingerprints taken from the house of the deceased -- With the acquittal of all the accused in respect of offences punishable u/s 412 IPC and under the Arms Act, there is no other material pointing towards the involvement of accused/HO – Court do not find the material on record sufficient to record conviction of accused/ HO for the offence u/s 396 IPC -- Benefit of doubt given.

(Para 26-28)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 324 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320 -- Attempt to murder – Conviction of appellants -- Compromise between parties – Reduction in quantum of sentence -- There can be no doubt that Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. does not encapsulate Section 324 and 307 IPC under its list of compoundable offences – Held, fact of amicable settlement can be a relevant factor for the purpose of reduction in the quantum of sentence – Appeal partly allowed, sentence of both the appellants reduced to the period already undergone by them.

(Para 6-17)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 51(5), 55, 61 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 364, 392 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Removal of hypothecation fraudulently – Sale of vehicle thereafter -- Vehicle involved in criminal case – Release of vehicle -- Right of subsequent purchaser – Statutory authority under MV Act recorded his conclusion that entry of the appellant in whose favour the vehicle was hypothecated has been fraudulently deleted – Held, in consequence of above, all subsequent acts including the registration certificate issued in the name of respondent No.1 became nonest -- Respondent No.1 although claimed that he is a bonafide purchaser but fact remains that he is beneficiary of fraud -- Held, High Court committed error in directing the release of the vehicle in favour of respondent No.1 -- Order of the High Court, thus, is unsustainable and set aside -- Vehicle ordered to be released in favour of the appellant.

(Para 20-23)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 452, 323, 148 & 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- House trespass – Compromise quashing of FIR – Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court, after recording the statements of the parties qua the execution and veracity of the alleged compromise furnished the report – FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 2-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 366, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Kidnapping case -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Parties got their statements recorded and Ld. Magistrate submitted report to the effect that the compromise is genuine – None has put in appearance on behalf of complainant party but no prejudice would be caused to them as they have already made a joint statement with regard to compromise before Ld. Magistrate – FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise.

(Para 2-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- Dowry death case – Car given to husband at the time of marriage – Superdari given to husband being registered owner by Special Court holding that since the plea of the petitioner/ complainant was that the car was given in dowry at the time of marriage of his daughter it meant that the same was gifted to the accused-husband -- By getting the car registered in his name the accused-husband accepted the said gift and thus the car cannot be said to be the istridhan of deceased – Held, registration certificate of a vehicle in favour of a person is an important determinative factor of ownership of the vehicle, keeping in view the limited scope of inquiry in a proceeding u/s 451 CrPC -- Petitioner can always stake his ownership on the car after getting the same determined by a competent court of law -- It is yet to be determined whether the car was part of the istridhan -- Ownership rights of the petitioner cannot be determined in proceedings u/s 451 CrPC – Order of Special Court upheld.

(Para 5-13)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A & 120B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Corruption case -- Application u/s 482 by third party to expedite criminal trial – Locus standi – Maintainability of – High Court directed trial court to expedite the criminal trial -- Held, respondent no. 2 (third party) has no locus to file application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to expedite the hearing in criminal trial -- Application was not clearly maintainable -- Impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.

(Para 2-4, 15)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- NDPS case – Release of Vehicle on superdari – Agreement to sell in favour of petitioner -- Held, vehicle in question can be released to the petitioner considering the fact that there is already an agreement in favour of the petitioner and also the fact that if the vehicle is allowed to remain parked in the police station it may become unfit for roadworthiness -- Petition allowed and vehicle in question is ordered to be released to the petitioner on Superdari.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 370, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Trafficking of person -- Compromise quashing of FIR – Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue – Petition allowed, FIR and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, quashed.

(Para 10, 18, 19)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 148 -- Cheque bounce case -- Deposit of 20% amount of fine or compensation – Whether discretion of Appellate Court – Held, power vested with the lower Appellate Court, though discretionary is supposed to be a ‘rule’ and said discretion should be exercised in all the cases unless there are some exceptional circumstances justifying deviation from the said rule.

(Para 7, 8)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case -- Deposit of 20% amount of fine or compensation – Power of Appellate Court -- Amount is required to be deposited within a period of 60 days which may further be extended by another 30 days -- Lower Appellate Court having granted one month’s period only for depositing the amount, the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act -- Error needs to be rectified.

(Para 9, 10)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 374 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Cheque bounce case – Appeal against conviction – Pre-condition of deposit of 20% of amount of fine or compensation – Interpretation of -- Section 374 Cr.P.C. does not prescribe any condition for admission of an appeal – Deposit of 20% of the compensation amount under no circumstances can be interpreted to be a condition pre-requisite for availing the right of appeal -- Imposition of any condition at the time of suspending of sentence may be a different matter failing which the order suspending sentence may be vacated -- While giving a wider connotation to Article 21 of Constitution of India, it can even be said that depriving a convict of his right to appeal by imposing any pre-requisite for availing his statutory right to challenge conviction in a higher Court would amount to depriving his liberty without adhering to the established procedure of law.

(Para 12, 13)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156, 173 -- Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 -- Closure report – Fair Investigaiton -- Investigation and closure report do not contain any material with regard to the nature of investigation for insufficiency of evidence against them -- Closure report is based on the ipse dixit of the Investigating Officer -- Investigation appears to be a sham, designed to conceal more than to investigate -- Police has the primary duty to investigate on receiving report of the commission of a cognizable offence -- This is a statutory duty under the Cr.P.C. apart from being a constitutional obligation to ensure that peace is maintained in the society and the rule of law is upheld and applied -- To say that further investigation was not possible as the informant had not supplied adequate materials to investigate is a preposterous statement, coming from the police – Trial of other accused stayed, closure reports partly set aside insofar as the non-charged sheeted accused are concerned -- I.P.S. appointed to carry out further investigation through a team of competent officers.

(Para 6, 7, 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156, 173 – Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 -- Investigaiton by police – Interference in – Power of -- Police has a statutory duty to investigate into any crime in accordance with law as provided in the Cr. P.C. -- Investigation is the exclusive privilege and prerogative of the police which cannot be interfered with -- But if the police does not perform its statutory duty in accordance with law or is remiss in the performance of its duty, the court cannot abdicate its duties on the precocious plea that investigation is the exclusive prerogative of the police -- Once the conscience of the court is satisfied, from the materials on record, that the police has not investigated properly or apparently is remiss in the investigation, the court has a bounden constitutional obligation to ensure that the investigation is conducted in accordance with law -- If the court gives any directions for that purpose within the contours of the law, it cannot amount to interference with investigation -- A fair investigation is, but a necessary concomitant of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and this Court has the bounden obligation to ensure adherence by the police.

(Para 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 149, 323, 354-D, 506 – Stalking -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Parties had appeared before learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate and got recorded their statements regarding compromise -- Petition allowed -- FIR along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 6-9)

Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972), Section 2, 9, 11, 12, 39A, 49A, 51, Schedule I, II, III, IV -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Offence under Wildlife Protection Act – Quashing of complaint by High Court – Challenge to – In case a person hunts any of the wild animals which are included in Schedule I to IV, it becomes an offence inviting the penalty under Section 51 of the Act, 1972 -- Veterinary Surgeon has identified the Turtle as ‘Indian Flap Shell (Lissemy’s Punctata)’ whereas the Turtle which is included in Part II of Schedule I of the Act, 1972 is “Indian Soft-shelled Turtle (Lissemys punctata punctata).”  -- Although Lissemys punctata is included in Part II of Schedule I of the Act, however, the Turtle which has been seized is not that which is included in Part II of Schedule I -- Turtle seized is not included in Schedule I Part II and the Turtle having already been freed on the second day of its seizure – Held, High Court did not commit any error in quashing the criminal proceedings registered for Wild Life offences -- No good ground to interfere with the order of the High Court by which the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(Para 9-14)

A. Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Section 4, 21, 22, 23-A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379, 414 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Section 22 – Registration of FIR – Cognizance of offence -- Court concluded:

i) that the learned Magistrate can in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of the Code order/direct the concerned In-charge/SHO of the police station to lodge/register crime case/FIR even for the offences under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder and at this stage the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act shall not be attracted;

ii) the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act shall be attracted only when the learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences under the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder and orders issuance of process/summons for the offences under the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder;

iii) for commission of the offence under the IPC, on receipt of the police report, the Magistrate having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the said offence without awaiting the receipt of complaint that may be filed by the authorised officer for taking cognizance in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder; and

iv) that in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder, when a Magistrate passes an order under Section 156(3) of the Code and directs the concerned In-charge/SHO of the police station to register/lodge the crime case/FIR in respect of the violation of various provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder and thereafter after investigation the concerned In-charge of the police station/investigating officer submits a report, the same can be sent to the concerned Magistrate as well as to the concerned authorised officer as mentioned in Section 22 of the MMDR Act and thereafter the concerned authorised officer may file the complaint before the learned Magistrate along with the report submitted by the concerned investigating officer and thereafter it will be open for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance after following due procedure, issue process/summons in respect of the violations of the various provisions of the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder and at that stage it can be said that cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate.

(Para 13)

B. Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Section 4, 21, 22, 23-A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379, 414 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Section 22 – Offence under Mines Act and IPC -- Compounding of offence – Effect of -- In a case where the violator is permitted to compound the offences on payment of penalty as per sub-section1 of Section 23A, considering sub-section 2 of Section 23A of the MMDR Act, there shall not be any proceedings or further proceedings against the offender in respect of the offences punishable under the MMDR Act or any rule made thereunder so compounded -- However, the bar under sub-section 2 of Section 23A shall not affect any proceedings for the offences under the IPC, such as, Sections 379 and 414 IPC and the same shall be proceeded with further.

(Para 13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 482 -- Proclaimed offender – Inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Anticipatory bail – Right of -- When an accused has been declared as a proclaimed offender, a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., impugning that order is not maintainable and accused should first move the Court which declared him a proclaimed offender and even an objection against validity of proclamation is required to be raised in the first instance before the Court which issued the proclamation and that power u/s 482 Cr.P.C., is not to be exercised in favour of a person, who is absconding or avoiding service -- If an accused is absconding and declared as a proclaimed offender, he should not be granted anticipatory bail -- Petition dismissed, petitioner directed to surrender before the trial Court and move application seeking regular bail. Mehnga Singh’s case 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) 501 and Pradeep Sharma’s case 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 269 relied.

(Para 3,4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 120-B -- Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014 Section 13 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Second petition for anticipatory bail – Compromise – Cheating – Petition allowed, petitioner directed to appear before the I.O. within a period of 10 days and she shall be released on interim bail on her furnishing bail/surety bonds subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. – Disposed of.

(Para 1-7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 – Transfer of trial – For transfer of trial from one Court to another, the Court must be fully satisfied about existence of such factors which would make it impossible to conduct a fair trial -- General allegation of surcharged atmosphere is not however sufficient -- One must also be mindful of the fact that when trial is shifted out from one State to another, it would tantamount to casting aspersions on the Court, having lawful jurisdiction to try the case -- Hence powers u/s 406 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only in deserving cases when fair and impartial trial uninfluenced by external factors, is not at all possible -- If the Courts are able to function uninfluenced by public sentiment, shifting of trial would not be warranted.

(Para 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 – Transfer of trial -- Petitioners are on bail, being residents of Punjab, they continue to reside at their usual place and are going about their routine affairs -- If their threat perceptions were genuine, they could not have gone about their normal ways --  For this reason, the Court is inclined to believe that the atmosphere in the State does not justify shifting of the trial venue to another State.

(Para 13)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 – Transfer of trial – Alternative place without pleading -- Submission that, if the Trials cannot be shifted to Delhi, they should be shifted to Chandigarh – Held, this was not the pleaded case of the Petitioners -- Suggested alternate venue is Punjab’s capital and even though Chandigarh is an Union Territory, the population pattern in the city is like the rest of Punjab -- Such alternative plea on the grounds pleaded in these matters cannot therefore be countenanced.

(Para 20)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 – Transfer of trial -- Transfer of trial from one state to another would inevitably reflect on the credibility of the State’s judiciary -- Except for compelling factors and clear situation of deprivation of fair justice, the transfer power should not be invoked -- Present bunch of cases are not perceived to be amongst such exceptional categories -- Cases are found devoid of merit, dismissed.

(Para 21-23)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 353, 186, 324, 326, 332, 333 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Grievous hurt – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner was arrested and then released on regular bail -- Subsequently, offences under Section 326, 333 IPC had been added -- It is not the case of the prosecution that petitioner has misused the concession of regular bail in any way -- Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required -- Petition accepted.

(Para 3-8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B, 498-A -- Dowry death case -- Summoning of additional accused -- Application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. moved after commencement of the trial -- Four witnesses already stood examined, thus the application was filed at the proper stage -- Evidence has been tested by way of cross-examination -- Persons were named in the FIR -- Only relevant question to be examined was regarding the 'degree of satisfaction' -- Death was caused due to asphyxia which was caused due to strangulation and throttling -- Thus, employment of external force in the death cannot be ruled out -- Harassment of deceased started on account of dowry immediately after the marriage -- PW-2 has attributed a specific role to father-in-law i.e. that of handing over gold jewellery of the deceased to him before she was rehabilitated on one occasion -- Thus, there exists more than prima facie case against father-in-law and the trial Court has erred in dismissing the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. -- Charges have been framed u/s 498-A IPC as well and there was no requirement of proving anything beyond harassment for dowry for summoning the additional accused.

(Para 12)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B -- Dowry death case – Regular bail -- Petitioner has undergone 1 year, 4 months and 12 days of custody and there is no other case pending against her – Medical evidence on record is in favour of the prosecution -- Death appears to have been caused by throttling which implies use of external force -- Moreover, prima facie, harassment on account of dowry has been established -- Death has taken place within one year and five months of marriage – Not a case of false implication -- It is not a case of inordinate delay -- Petition has no merit and dismissed at this stage.

(Para 18-21)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 326, 308, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357 -- Incident of 2002 – Sentenced reduced to already undergone -- Considering the fact that the incident occurred on 13.01.2002 and the appellant has already served more than two years of sentence, while maintaining the conviction for the offence u/s 308/ 34 IPC and u/s 326 IPC, Court reduced the sentence for the period already undergone -- Compensation awarded for the offence u/s 308/34 IPC reduced to Rs.5,000/- and for offence u/s 326 IPC also reduced to Rs.5,000/-.

(Para 12)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 134 -- Hostile witness – Consideration of other evidence for conviction -- No doubt large number of witnesses turned hostile and the Trial Court was also not happy with the manner of prosecution conducted the case -- In the absence of any witness protection regime of substance, one has to examine whatever is the evidence which is capable of being considered, and then come to a finding whether it would suffice to convict the accused.

(Para 20)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313, 433, 433-A -- Murder of wife – Circumstantial evidence – Conviction of husband – Appeal against – Commutation of sentence -- Death by asphyxia due to strangulation -- Minimum five minutes of forceful pulling to cause the death -- Most important aspect is where the death was caused and the body found -- It was in the precincts of the house of the appellant/husband where there were only family members staying – No possibility of somebody from outside coming and strangulating the deceased – Appellant/ husband is alleged to have caused the death of his wife by strangulation -- No explanation has been given as to how the wife could have received the injuries -- This is a strong circumstance indicating that he is responsible for commission of the crime -- Appellant was under an obligation to give a plausible explanation regarding the cause of the death in the statement recorded u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. and mere denial could not be the answer in such a situation – Appeal dismissed -- Respondent/State directed to examine for release of appellant on completion of 14 years of actual sentence in accordance with norms.

(Para 23-27)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 401 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Conviction under Arms Act – Dismissal of revision in default – Sustainability of -- Held, High Court was manifestly in error in rejecting the revision in default, on the ground that the appellant’s advocate had remained absent on the previous four occasions -- Since the revision before the High Court arose out of an order of the conviction under the Arms Act, the High Court ought to have appointed an Amicus Curiae in the absence of counsel -- Liberty of a citizen cannot be taken away in this manner – Appeal allowed, Revision restored to the file of the High Court.

(Para 7,8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 392, 394, 34 – Robbery and voluntary causing hurt while committing robbery – Compromise between parties -- Regular bail – Petitioners assaulted complainant and snatched Rs.8000/- from him -- One of petitioner took knife out from his pocket and inserted it in stomach -- Petitioners were arrested on 27.05.2020 and challan was presented on 23.7.2020 – In compromise deed respondent No.2-complainant has stated that he has not received any serious injury and the compromise has been effected between both the parties – Petitions allowed, petitioners directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 3-9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(2) -- Bail on incomplete facts -- Cancellation of bail -- It is the duty of the Court to consider the entire actual facts and circumstances and then decide whether a particular accused is entitled for the grant of bail or not -- At the time of grant of bail to respondent No.2, the recovery of the knife and the corresponding injuries upon the deceased were not brought to the knowledge of the Court and were not taken into consideration -- When the said facts brought to the notice of the Court by the State, the same have been declared as insignificant so as to review the order granting bail – Held, once, a recovery of knife has been attributed to respondent No.2 as per his own disclosure statement and admittedly, there are corresponding injuries with the said weapon, which are fatal in nature received by the deceased on his head, the said facts cannot be treated as insignificant for considering the grant or cancellation of bail, especially when a person has lost his life -- Order granting bail cannot be sustained – Respondent No.2 is directed to surrender before the jail authority.

(Para 7-16)