A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 216 -- Charge-sheet can be amended/altered at any stage before pronouncement of judgment -- Either prosecution or accused can file application for amendment of charge and in case Court comes to conclusion that charge required to be amended then Court can suo moto amend charge-sheet at any stage before judgment is pronounced.

(Para 6)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 – Criminal breach of trust – Cheating -- Charge-sheet u/s 420 of IPC cannot be framed simultaneously along with offence u/s 406 of IPC.

(Para 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 500, 501, 182, 183 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195 -- Discharge in rape case – Defamation -- Discharged by holding that there is no incriminating evidence  -- No finding that the petitioner had been falsely implicated on the basis of false statements and fabrication of evidence – No finding of any Court or any Investigating Officer that false statements had been made – For offence u/s 193 IPC, the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. were to be resorted to which had not been done -- Offence u/s 182 IPC is also not made out -- Even otherwise, the charge were framed -- No evidence of the filing of a false complaint to defame the petitioner – Dismissal of complaint upheld.

(Para 10, 11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 5 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 244, 245 – Discharge of accused -- Omnibus and general allegations against married sisters-in-law residing at distant places married prior to the marriage in question -- Complainant has stated in her evidence that her sisters-in-law are greedy people and used to visit her matrimonial home and gave her beating, and all the accused persons got her pregnancy aborted, but there is no medical evidence in support of this version -- Court below, while dismissing the discharge application has failed to notice the role of the revisionists and the probability of their false implication -- They are not supposed to be beneficiary of any demand of dowry made by co-accused persons – Revision partly allowed, ld. Magistrate directed to consider the prayer for discharge made by present revisionists a fresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam’s case AIR 2022 SC 820 relied.

(Para 11-21)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 504, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Trivial nature of offence -- Long pendency of trial -- Quashing of Chargesheet -- Considering the nature of allegations which are of very trivial nature and considering the fact that there is no progress made in the proceedings since the chargesheet was filed in the year 2015, continuing the proceedings would be a persecution and harassment to the appellant -- Proceedings pending in the court of CJM against the appellant quashed and set aside.

(Para 3-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Kidnapping -- Quashing of Charge-sheet and entire criminal proceedings – Main accused acquitted and married the victim -- Victim did not support the case of prosecution – Both the applicants are in-laws of victim with whom the main accused and victim are residing peacefully with girl child -- Held, if in the above scenario the applicants are directed to face the trial, it would be the travesty of justice and abuse of process of law for the reason that this trial would result into acquittal – Supplementary charge-sheet quashed and accordingly the summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case quashed.

(Para 8-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211, 227 -- Charge -- Psychological Evaluation test – Discharge of accused -- Settled proposition of law is that at the stage of hearing on the charges entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed -- In case no offence is made out then only an accused can be discharged -- Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of trial -- At the stage of charge, the Court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons -- Though Psychological Evaluation test report only may not be sufficient to convict an accused but certainly a material piece of evidence -- High Court could not have opined that the case was not made out even for framing of charge – Appeal allowed, order of High Court set aside.

(Para 11, 18-20)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 452 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211 – House trespass -- Exclusive possession – Framing of charge -- Nothing placed on record by the petitioner to even prima facie show exclusive possession of the property in dispute -- Once this had not been proved, no offence would be made out u/s 452 IPC -- Trial Court rightly did not frame any charge u/s 452 IPC – Revision dismissed.

(Para 10-12)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379, 380 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211 – Theft – Framing of charge -- Apart from the bald statement that the respondent alongwith his accomplices had taken away the articles, no evidence led -- Prima facie case should be made out and charges cannot be framed on mere assumptions and presumptions or on the mere bald statements of the complainant and the witnesses -- Courts below, therefore, rightly did not frame any charge under Sections 379 and 380 IPC -- Revision dismissed.

(Para 10-12)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211 – Criminal intimidation – Framing of charge -- Charges framed u/s 506 IPC only as the respondent is alleged to have given threats to the petitioner that he would be eliminated -- No other evidence could have been produced -- Only the statement of the petitioner was sufficient -- Charge u/s 506 IPC upheld.

(Para 10-12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 102 – Freezing of Bank account of Company -- Imposition of the bank guarantee and the freeze orders solely on the grounds of criminal proceedings being alive against one person, who is alleged to be connected to the appellant company -- Said person lateron discharged, he was never an employee/ share holder/ director or a key managerial person in the appellant company – Said person was in no way connected to the appellant company, the trial faced by him, was in his individual capacity, and not vicariously on behalf of the appellant company -- Operation of the freeze order against the appellant company, is not legally tenable.

-- Even if accused discharge is subsequently reversed, and he is convicted, such a conviction would still have no bearing on the properties of the appellant company, since the appellant company is not alleged to be a part of the crime.

-- freeze order against the appellant company’s properties is redundant qua the investigation, since the appellant company itself is not necessary for the conclusion of the investigation.

Appellant permitted to withdraw the amount along with 4% simple interest, which shall be payable from 08.05.2006 till the date of actual payment.

(Para 10-21)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 118(a) – Complaint for dishonor of cheque – Presumption – Rebuttal -- There is a difference between an ‘ordinary criminal case’ and a ‘complaint under Section 138 of NI Act’ -- In ordinary criminal case, presumption of innocence is in favour of accused, whereas in a case in complaint under NI Act, presumption is in favour of complainant with reverse onus upon the accused.

(Para 20)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 251, 258 – Complaint for dishonor of cheque – Notice of accusation – Discharge of accused – Quashing of criminal proceedings -- In case ingredients for filing complaint u/s 138 of NI Act are in existence, then presumption is there, as provided under law, and to rebut the same, definitely, evidence would be required, which would be possible only in the trial Court, but in case essential ingredients are lacking, then the trial Court, at the time of framing of charge/putting notice of accusation, can quash the criminal proceedings.

(Para 21)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Complaint for dishonor of cheque – Security Cheque -- Presumption is in favour of the complainant and against the petitioner/accused – No illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Magistrate for summoning the petitioner – Petitioner shall have every right to rebut the presumption by placing on record relevant material before the Trial Court at appropriate stage during trial -- Quashing petition dismissed.

(Para 22, 23)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227, 228 -- Quashing of criminal proceedings after framing of charges -- Inherent power of High court -- Without considering the application on merits to quash the criminal proceedings, the High Court dismissed the application as the discharge application is pending before Trial Court – In Anand Kumar Mohatta’s case (2019) 11 SCC 706 the Supreme Court observed and held that High court can exercise jurisdiction u/s 482 of Cr.P.C even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court -- Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced, and the allegations have materialized into a charge sheet -- On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation -- Case remanded back to the High Court to consider the quashing petition/petition u/s 482 CrPC afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits at the earliest.

(Para 2-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 447, 506, 120-B, 192, 465, 467, 468, 471 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227 -- Cheating and forgery -- Discharge of accused by Trial court – Revision dismissed by Revisional Court – Challenge to -- Nothing on the record which could prima facie show the involvement of respondents No.2 to 6 or they were beneficiaries of the alleged agreement to sell -- No illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court and Revisional Court.

Para 10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227 – Discharge of accused -- Central Vigilance Commission ordered that no offence under penal code was made out – A reading of Report shows that, at the highest, the appellant may be negligent without any criminal culpability -- In fact, the positive finding of the CVC that the appellant appears to be a victim – It is clear that in view of the detailed CVC order, the chances of conviction in a criminal trial involving the same facts appear to be bleak – Appellant discharge from the offences under the Penal Code.

(Para 6-8)