A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 441, 442, 452 -- House trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint – Incident at restaurant – Acquittal -- Incident had taken place in a restaurant run by the injured PW-1, which cannot be said to be either a place used for human dwelling or for worship or for the custody of the property -- Appellant could not have been convicted for the offence under Section 452 IPC – Conviction set aside -- Appellant acquitted for the offence u/s 452 IPC.

(Para 10-12)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 441, 442, 452 -- House trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint -- The “house trespass” being an essential ingredient for convicting a person under Section 452, it has to be proved by the prosecution that the accused committed the house trespass and criminal trespass by entering into or unlawfully remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, as contemplated in Section 442 IPC.

(Para 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 , Section 304 Part I – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Benefit of doubt -- Previous enmity between the parties -- A month prior to the date of the incident, an FIR was lodged by the wife of the appellant No.1 against the deceased since he had tried to dispossess the appellants -- Place of the incident is adjacent to the field in possession of the appellants -- Weapons used by the accused persons are axe and sticks commonly used by the agriculturists -- No material to show that there is any premeditation – Possibility of offence being committed by the appellants without premeditation in a sudden fight in a heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel cannot be ruled out -- It cannot be said that the appellants have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner -- Appellants would be entitled to benefit of doubt, conviction u/s 302 IPC needs to be altered Part I of Section 304 IPC.

(Para 18-21)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 20 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS Case – Regular  bail -- Recovery of 3.17 Kg. of charas – Sample was not taken from each piece or each strip, 100 gram sample was randomly taken -- It cannot be said that each sample is the representative sample of the allegedly recovered quantity of the applicant -- Bail allowed. Gaunter Edwin Kircher’s case (1993) 3 SCC 145 relied.

(Para 4-9)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3(a), 4(2), 5 (n), 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366, 376(3), 376 (2)(n) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 439 -- POCSO – Rape – Regular bail – Applicant submitted hat the victim in her examination u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. has stated that she was known to the applicant and she on her own left her house and joined the company of the applicant and they did not establish any physical relationship -- These facts admitted by State -- Bail allowed.

(Para 4-7)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3(a), 4(2), 5 (l), 6– Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366, 376 (2) (n), 376 (3) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 164, 439 -- POCSO – Rape – Regular bail – In statement u/s 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., victim stated that the victim and the applicant both were in relationship and their relations were consensual – State submitted that the victim is a minor – Bail allowed.

(Para 4-7)

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972), Section 9, 39, 48, 50, 51 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Recovery of elephant tusk – Regular bail -- No expert opinion at this stage -- Applicant has no criminal history – Bail allowed.

(Para 3-7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B, 420, 468, 471 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(2), 13(1)(d) – Cheating and forgery – Corruption case – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Matter compromised between the borrowers and the Bank -- Upon payment of the amount under the OTS, the loan account of the borrower has been closed -- Only question would be, as to whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present appellants would be justified or not -- In Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.4353 of 2018, it was held that when the matter has been compromised between the borrower and Bank, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would not be justifiable – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 3, 14-17)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Compromise quashing of FIR – Matrimonial dispute – Financial matters -- In the matters arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, the High Court should exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC for giving an end to the criminal proceedings.

(Para 15)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(r) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Case under SC/ ST Act – Compromise quashing of FIR – FIR along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 4)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Quashing of FIR/ Complaint – Duty of High Court -- Beyond holding that there are specific allegations, there is no other analysis by High Court -- Duty of the High Court, when its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution is invoked on the ground that the Complaint/ FIR is manifestly frivolous, vexatious or instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, to examine the allegations with care and caution.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 – Dowry case -- Quashing of FIR/ Charge-sheet – Husband not accused in criminal case -- While the husband institutes the civil suit, his wife has chosen to initiate criminal proceedings -- Interestingly, there is no reference of one proceeding in the other -- On 27.02.2013, the husband filed the Special Civil Suit against the three appellants, i.e. his father, stepmother and stepbrother seeking for a declaration that the property is ancestral in nature and that the father has no right to alienate or dispose of the property and also sought a declaration that he is entitled to use the trademark of the family business – Complainant/ wife filed the criminal complaint on 01.03.2013 alleging demand of dowry and threat by appellants that she and her husband will be denied a share in the property -- Provocation for the Complaint/ FIR is essentially the property dispute between father and son – FIR and Chargesheet quashed.

(Para 9, 18)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 – Dowry case -- Quashing of FIR/ Charge-sheet – Husband not accused in criminal case -- Allegations are vague, lacking in basic details -- The essence of the complaint is in the alleged threat to deprive the husband any share in the property with respect to which the husband has already filed the suit for declaration – In DV complaint identical allegations were examined in detail, subjected to strict scrutiny, and rejected as being false and untenable – The case is instance of abuse of criminal process and it would not be fair and just to subject the appellants to the entire criminal law process – FIR and charge-sheet quashed.

(Para 9-18)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Quashing of FIR – Charge-sheet filed -- There is no prohibition against quashing of the criminal proceedings even after the charge sheet has been filed.

(Para 16)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211 -- Attempt to murder – Simple injuries – Effect of -- Question of intention to kill or the knowledge of death in terms of Section 307, IPC is a question of fact and not one of law – Minor nature of injuries is not sufficient reason to not frame a charge u/s 307 IPC.

(Para 14-16)

A. Evidence law -- Injured eye-witnesses -- Sworn testimonies provided by injured witnesses generally carry significant evidentiary weight -- Such testimonies cannot be dismissed as unreliable unless there are pellucid and substantial discrepancies or contradictions that undermine their credibility -- If there is any exaggeration in the deposition that is immaterial to the case, such exaggeration should be disregarded; however, it does not warrant the rejection of the entire evidence.

(Para 12)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34 -- Common intention -- There cannot be a fixed timeframe for formation of common intention -- It is not essential for the perpetrators to have had prior meetings to conspire or make preparations for the crime -- Common intention to commit murder can arise even moments before the commission of the act -- Since common intention is a mental state of the perpetrators, it is inherently challenging to substantiate directly -- Instead, it can be inferred from the conduct of the perpetrators immediately before, during, and after the commission of the act.

(Para 19)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34, 302 – Murder -- Common intention -- Appellants are related by blood, arrived at the crime scene armed with a 12 bore double-barrel gun, dangs, and lathis within 15 minutes of the initial altercation, and subsequently attacked P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, and the victims -- During this attack, A-4, the father of A-1, raged by the incident of P.W.3 slapping his adult son A-1 and the pursuant altercation, fired with his gun at P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and the victims -- Thereafter, all the appellants fled together carrying their weapons -- It is evident that the appellants acted with a common intention to kill, seeking to avenge the slapping incident.

(Para 20)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34, 149 -- Common intention – Common object -- Determination of common intention or common object should primarily be within the domain of the trial courts, and at the most the high courts -- It should not be the role of Supreme Court to directly adjudicate issues of common intention and common object.

(Para 21)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 216, 464 – Non-framing of charge -- Failure of justice -- No finding, sentence or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in an appeal, confirmation or revision, a claim of "failure of justice" has been substantiated.

-- Law is well-settled that in order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned, it will be relevant to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself.

(Para 24, 25)

F. Evidence law – Independent witness -- It is settled law that examination of independent witness is not an indispensable requisite if the testimonies of other witnesses are deemed trustworthy and reliable --  Prosecution's case cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of the absence of independent witness.

(Para 29, 30)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 304 Part-I – Murder – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- There is a possibility of deceased and (PW-1) coming to the shop of accused no.2 and a fight taking place between the two groups -- Nothing on record to establish that there was any pre-meditation --  Possibility of the offence being committed by the appellants without pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel cannot be ruled out -- Nothing on record to show that the appellants have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner -- Appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt -- Case would be covered under Part-I of Section 304 of IPC --  Appellants have undergone the sentence of more than 8 years without remission – Appeals partly allowed, appellants sentenced to the period already undergone.

(Para 3, 15-18)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 306 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113A – Abetment to suicide – Presumption – Acquittal -- Marriage on 14.11.2011 – Suicide on 11.05.2012 -- Accused went to Assam in the month of April, 2012 for joining his duty -- Deceased had died while she was in her parents’ house and at that time the accused was in Assam -- General allegations of harassment, no independent witness to prove that any demand of dowry was made by the accused in their presence -- No evidence led by prosecution that there was abetment of such grave nature which was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide -- Suicidal death may be the deceased's own act, being of hyper sensitive nature, for which, the husband cannot be held guilty -- Acquittal order, upheld.

(Para 2(a), 18, 36-39)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451, 482 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 20, 29, 60 -- NDPS Case – Superdari of vehicle -- Confiscation of vehicle – Ground of -- Release of vehicle cannot be denied to the applicant on the ground that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated; rather a duty has been cast upon the Court to immediately release the vehicle to the rightful owner until the question of confiscation of the vehicle is decided by the Competent Court -- Pendency of the confiscation proceedings has nothing to do with the release of the vehicle -- Subject to the furnishing of sapurdari bond in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, vehicle ordered to be released.

(Para 8-14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Excise matter -- Regular bail – Direction to furnish bail bonds after 6 months – Sustainability of -- High Court ordered to release the petitioner on bail subject condition that “the petitioner shall furnish his bail bonds after completion of six months in custody from today” – Held, no valid reason for the High Court to impose the condition – Condition set aside, Trial Court directed to release the petitioner on bail forthwith on furnishing bail bonds to its satisfaction.

(Para 1-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody for more than 5 years -- An accused or an under trial has a fundamental right to speedy trial -- When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused-under trial on the ground that the charges are very serious -- Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that the charges are very serious though there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude -- Out of 48 witnesses, only about 16 to 18 witnesses have been examined – Bail allowed.

(Para 5)

A. National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (34 of 2008), Section 22 – Court of Session -- Special Court – Power of -- Court of Session exercising jurisdiction of the Special Court u/s 22 Sub-section (3) of the NIA Act, can exercise all the powers that have been conferred on the Special Court under Chapter IV of the NIA Act.

(Part 31)

B. National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (34 of 2008), Section 21, 22 – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 15, 16 – UAPA -- Rejection of bail by Session Court/ Special Court -- Orders passed by the Court of Session u/s 22(3) shall be appealable u/s 21 of the NIA Act -- An appeal would lie before the Division Bench of High Court.

(Para 3, 31, 32)

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 18 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 438 -- Anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act – Maintainability of -- Whether Section 18 of the Act, 1989 imposes an absolute bar on the grant of anticipatory bail in cases registered under the said Act? -- The term ‘arrest’ appearing in the text of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 should be construed and understood in the larger context of the powers of police to effect an arrest and the restrictions imposed by the statute and the courts on the exercise of such power -- Bar u/s 18 of the Act, 1989 would apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act, 1989 -- Because it is only when a prima facie case is made out that the pre-arrest requirements as stipulated u/s 41 of CrPC could be said to be satisfied.

(Para 13, 46)

B. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(r), 18 – Anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act -- Mere knowledge of the fact that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 -- Offence must have been committed against the person on the ground or for the reason that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe – While considering,  whether prima facie materials exist, warranting arrest of the appellant, there is nothing to indicate that the allegations/ statements alleged to have been made by the appellant were for the reason that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste -- Appeal succeeds, in the event of arrest of the appellant, he shall be released on bail.

(Para 80-89)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Proclaimed offender – Quashing -- Proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be issued for 04.11.2022 -- Proclamation warrant were fixed on 03.11.2022 at the house of the petitioner, public place and notice board of the Court -- On 04.11.2022, as one month’s time has not elapsed after the publication, the case was adjourned to 16.12.2022 awaiting the presence of the petitioner – Held, the trial Court could not extend the time by simply adjourning the case for awaiting the appearance of the petitioner and was mandatorily required to issue the proclamation against for publication thereof in accordance with the provisions of Section 82(2) Cr.P.C -- Apart from that, the proclamation was not read publicly in some conspicuous place in the town/ village in which the accused ordinarily resided and the proclamation was not duly published – Impugned order declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender set aside.

(Para 1, 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 300, 302, 304 Part-I -- Murder – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by both the accused persons as well as the deceased, the possibility of the incident taking place in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel cannot be ruled out -- No evidence that the appellant has taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner -- Weapon used is a pocketknife -- Injury caused by the said knife is a single injury -- Appellant held entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC -- Conviction u/s 302 IPC altered to the one under Part-I of Section 304 IPC -- Appellant sentenced to suffer R.I. for 8 years.

(Para 16-20)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304B, 498A – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106, 113B -- Dowry death – Presumption – Onus of proof -- Deceased subjected to harassment and cruelty and death occurred within seven years of marriage sustaining 100% burn injuries inside her matrimonial home -- Onus was on the appellants/ accused to establish that it was not a dowry death -- Section 106 of the Evidence Act also put burden on the appellant no.1-husband who went to sleep with her in the same room, but escaped unscathed to explain as to how the death had occurred -- High Court arrived at the rightful conclusion reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court and in convicting and sentencing the appellants.

(Para 7-10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 18, 18(b), 29 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS – Commercial quantity – Regular bail –  Trial delayed due to the repeated and continuous non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses, the State cannot justifiably oppose the prayer of the petitioner for bail -- Petitioner in custody since 13.09.2022, there is no foreseeable conclusion to the trial in the near future -- Court deemed it appropriate to allow the petition by dispensing with the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act -- Petitioner admitted to bail.

(Para 7-9)

A. Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Right to bail – Right to Life and liberty – Restrictions imposed by Statute – Effect on Constitutional Court -- Right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct -- A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed -- In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way.

(Para 32)

B. Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Right to bail – Right to Life and liberty – Restrictions imposed by Statute – Effect on Constitutional Court -- In the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to leError! Hyperlink reference not valid.an in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part -- In the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail -- But it would be very wrong to say that under a particular statute, bail cannot be granted --  It would run  counter to the very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence.

(Para 32)

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)

A. Prisons Act, 1894 (9 of 1894), Section 59(5)(28) – Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, Rule 19 -- Parole -- Son going abroad – A happy occasion like this, son secured an admission in a prestigious University in Australia, who is going to depart from the country for a period of two years -- If for the purpose of celebration of marriage parole can be granted, Court failed to understand why merely because the rule do not contemplate such a contingency, the benefit of this rule shall not be extended to the petitioner – 10 days parole granted.

(Para 8-10)

B. Prisons Act, 1894 (9 of 1894), Section 59(5)(28) – Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, Rule 19 -- Parole – Furlough -- Provisions of Parole and Furlough have been time and again looked towards as a humanistic approach towards the convicts lodged in Jail for an act purely attributed to them. -- In order to afford an opportunity to them to be in touch with the outside world and to arrange for their family affairs as though behind bars, the convict continue to be someone’s son, husband, father, brother and upon being released, though for temporary period on Furlough or in an emergency situation on parole, like death of a member of family or to attend to a member on account of his illness, the Furlough and Parole have received approval as conditional release of a prisoner.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Murder – Acquittal -- Test identification parade (TIP) – TIP not done during investigation -- All the prosecution witnesses who identified the accused in the Court were not known to the appellant -- They had not seen the appellant prior to the said incident -- TIP had become necessary particularly when both the accused, who are alleged to have committed this murder were arrested within two days -- Inspite of being questioned as to what the reasons were for not holding TIP in this case, no satisfactory reply was given by him -- Identification of the accused before the court ought to have been corroborated by the previous TIP which has not been done -- Appellant could not have been convicted on the basis of a very doubtful evidence as to the appellant’s identity -- Appeal allowed.

(Para 10-16)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Test identification parade (TIP) – TIP is only a part of Police investigation -- The identification in TIP of an accused is not a substantive piece of evidence -- Not conducting TIP in a given case may prove fatal for the prosecution.

(Para 12)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397 – Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Compromise thereafter – Quashing of conviction/ sentence – Trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/- to the complainant – Appellate court affirmed the same -- Matter ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence quashed and set aside -- Petitioner-accused acquitted subject to deposit of 10% of the Cheque amount with the HPSLSA.

(Para 1, 8, 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – POCSO – Rape – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Since the parties have married each other, the petition is allowed -- FIR and consequential proceedings arising therefrom ordered to be quashed.

(Para 1-4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Compromise – Acquittal --  Entire amount of compensation agreed to be paid to the respondent-complainant and respondent has no objection in compounding the offence -- No impediment in accepting the prayer for compounding of offence while exercising power u/s 147 of the Act even after recording of conviction by the courts below – Matter compounded, impugned judgments of conviction and sentence quashed and set aside. Damodar S. Prabhu’s case (2010) 5 SCC 663 = (2010) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15231 relied.

(Para 9-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 376, 376 (2n) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – POCSO -- Rape with minor – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Complainant and the victim (19 year old) on oath stated that the FIR sought to be quashed, is the result of misunderstanding same the was lodged in a hot haste, without realizing the consequences of the same -- Both victim and the petitioner were in touch with each other, but there is no allegation of sexual assault, if any -- At the time of alleged offence, the victim was 17 and ½ years old – Victim in her statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC specifically denied factum with regard to her abduction and kidnapping by petitioner, coupled with the fact that she does not want to pursue the criminal proceedings – Since the matter stands compromised and they are no more interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings against each other, no fruitful purpose would be served in case criminal proceedings are allowed to continue – FIR as well as consequent proceedings ordered to be quashed and set-aside.

(Para 4-7, 13, 14)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(r), 14(2), 18 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – SC/ST Case – Cheating -- It has not been specifically stated IN FIR that the appellants had any knowledge that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste and even no specific words have been attributed by the appellants – Prima facie, the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act are not made out and thus, the appeal is allowed and in the event of arrest, the appellants shall be released on bail subject to furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Section 3k(i), 29(1)(a)(i), 33 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of Complaint – Company not arrayed as party -- Once the company has not been arrayed as accused, the petitioners who are employees of the company, cannot be prosecuted for the commission of the alleged offence -- Complaint quashed.

(Para 3, 8, 13)

B. Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), 3k(i), 24(3)(4), 29(1)(a)(i) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of Complaint -- Re-analysing of sample – Delay by trial court -- Ld. trial court did not decide the application of the petitioners for re-analyzing the samples within the period of shelf life of the product  -- Right of the petitioners for getting the samples reanalysed under section 24(3)&(4) of the Act, has been violated – Complaint quashed.

(Para 2, 9-13)

A. Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (XII of 1989), Section 420 -- Cheating -- Pre-requisite -- Investigating agency or the prosecuting agency, as the case may be, is obliged to show the existence of dishonest intention right from the inception when a person alleged to be deceived is induced to deliver the property etc.

(Para 9)

B. Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (XII of 1989), Section 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 561A -- Cheating -- Supply of plant sapling – Plantation perished – Whether cheating – Quashing of FIR -- Plant or a sapling may perish due to multiple factors, may be with the intervention of weather, due to quality of soil or inadequate supply of water -- Negligence on the part of a farmer may also contribute for the destruction of a plant -- Complainants lodged the FIR without specific material to infer the existence of dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner-accused from the inception – Conversion of a purely civil dispute into a criminal offence is not permissible -- FIR quashed.

(Para 12-15)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 377 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Unnatural sex by husband – Quashing of FIR/ charge -- Consent -- Respondent no.2/wife was residing with her husband during the subsistence of their marriage and as per amended definition of "rape" u/s 375 of IPC by which insertion of penis in the mouth of a woman has also been included in the definition of "rape" and any sexual intercourse or act, by the husband with his wife not below the age of fifteen years is not a rape, therefore, consent is immaterial – Held, allegations made in the FIR does not constitute offence u/s 377 of IPC against the petitioner no.1 -- Offence u/s 377 of IPC against the petitioners quashed.

(Para 5, 15, 20)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 294 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Obscene act in any public place -- Prima facie, there is no evidence available on record by which it can be ascertained that the accused persons have committed any obscene act in any public place – Said incidents have been occurred in the premises of the house which is surrounded by walls, hence offence u/s 294 of IPC is not made out against the petitioners -- Offence u/s 294 of IPC against the petitioners quashed.

(Para 16, 20)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Criminal intimidation – Quashing of FIR -- An omnibus statement regarding threatening to kill, which is not sufficient to establish the charge of offence u/s 506 of IPC because the said threaten must consist the ingredients of fear and frightening -- Allegations not containing any date, time and place -- Respondent no.2 had never stated that she was frightened by said threatening, hence offence u/s 506 of IPC not made out against the petitioners -- Offence u/s 506 of IPC against the petitioners quashed.

(Para 17, 20)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A -- Cruelty – Dowry case -- To make out an offence u/s 498A IPC complainant has not only to allege demand for dowry but also that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or relatives of the husband for non-fulfilment of their unlawful demand.

(Para 18)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 156(3), 177, 190 -- Registration of FIR – Territorial jurisdiction -- Power of Magistrate – A Magistrate can order investigation of only those cases which the Court has jurisdiction to enquire into and try under Chapter XV of J&K CrPC which is applicable to the case -- Section 177 of CrPC which falls in Chapter XV provides that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed.

(Para 10)

B. Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (XII of 1989), Section 4 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 188, 561A -- Quashing of FIR -- Territorial jurisdiction -- A proposal for insurance policy from the travel agent of deceased  at Delhi and it was forwarded to the authorised agent of petitioner/ company stationed at Delhi -- Travel insurance was to take effect from Delhi as the deceased had booked himself from Delhi to Frankfurt -- Death of the deceased in Switzerland -- Thus, neither any event nor its consequence has taken place within the territorial limits of either CJM or within the territorial limits of Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu -- Neither the petitioner-company, nor respondent No.2 is a State subject -- They are not even registered as companies within the jurisdiction of erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir -- Therefore, the provisions contained in Section 4 of RPC and Section 188 of CrPC would not be attracted -- Order of Ld. CJM, Jammu, directing the SHO to register the impugned FIR and investigate the same is, without jurisdiction – FIR quashed.

(Para 11-13, 21)

C. Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (XII of 1989), Section 304 (II), 420, 409, 467, 468 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 561A -- Medical insurance policy – Non-honour of medi-claim – FIR for cheating, forgery & culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Quashing of FIR -- Transaction between the insurer and the insured is purely contractual in nature, if any of the parties to this contract defaults in honouring its commitment, it cannot form a basis for launching a criminal prosecution -- Merely because, on the basis of non-payment of compensation under the insurance policy to the complainant, her son breathed his last, it cannot be stated that the petitioner-company was, in any manner, responsible for his death and it cannot be prosecuted for a serious offence like culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Petitioner/ company cannot be held responsible for forgery of the cancellation letter purported to have been issued by deceased through his agent – FIR quashed.

(Para 14-21)

Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (XII of 1989), Sections 420, 406, 452, 465, 467, 506 and 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 561A – Quashing of FIR -- Occupation of the house despite expiry of the license agreement – Suit for mandatory injunction against the petitioner for vacation of the house in question already filed -- No doubt the suit has been stayed but it does not mean that respondent No.2 can continue to use the criminal proceedings for settling the civil dispute between her and the petitioner – Held, dispute between the contesting parties is predominantly civil in nature and the criminal proceedings have been used to settle the civil dispute – FIR impugned is nothing but an abuse of process of law – FIR quashed.

(Para 19-21)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 216, 427, 120-B, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 29, 30 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner is not amongst the assailants -- Only attribution to the petitioner is that he was handed over a pistol and two live cartridges by co-accused, which he concealed in a farm house and later on, handed over the same to the same co-accused -- Petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year 4 months and 27 days -- Trial may take time to conclude -- Though he is involved in two more criminal cases, but having regard to the nature of attribution to the petitioner, mere criminal antecedents of the petitioner cannot be a reason to decline him bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 7)

Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Section 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 -- Insecticides Rules, 1971, Rule 27(5) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468, 470, 473, 482 – Quashing of complaint/ summoning order -- Time barred complaint -- Sample of insecticide was taken on 26.07.2011 and the report of Public Analyst was received on 12.08.2011 – Limitation will commence from the date of receipt of the report of the Public Analyst -- Sanction letter is dated 01.01.2014, which was applied on 06.08.2012 -- Period of 1 year 4 months and 26 days is liable to be excluded for computing the period of limitation -- Complaint filed on 30.03.2016 is beyond the period of 3 years -- Ld. Magistrate was statutorily debarred from taking cognizance of the offence in view of Section 468 CrPC -- Complaint, the summoning order and all subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 8-17)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Abetment of suicide – Quashing of FIR/ Police report -- Illicit relationship of spouse -- Feeling upset or harassed on account of the illicit relations of a spouse and thereby committing suicide, in the absence of any positive act on the part of such spouse would not constitute abetment -- Apparently, a person of ordinary prudence would not have committed suicide in similar circumstances but the deceased did due to his hypersensitive nature -- FIR and the report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. clearly do not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioners -- FIR, the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed.

(Para 12-17)

Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), Section 108, 117 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 4, 5, -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174, 175 -- Summons u/s 108 of Customs Act – Non- compliance of – Applicability of Section 174, 175 of IPC --  Had there been no provision like 117 in the Customs Act, obviously the concerned person to whom summons have been issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, if fails to comply therewith, would have been guilty for committing an offence under Section 174 of 175 or both of the Indian Penal Code -- Section 117 of the Customs Act, finds place in a Special Act i.e., Customs Act, which is a complete code in itself providing for various violations, offences and penalties and the procedure etc., therefore, Section 174 & 175 of Indian Penal Code will have no application, in view of Section 4 & 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code -- Prosecution u/s 174 & 175 of the IPC quashed.

(Para 8-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120-B, 147, 149, 188, 269, 270 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder – Regular bail – Petitioner name come in disclosure statement – No specific attribution or any overt act is attributed to the petitioner -- None of examined prosecution witnesses named the petitioner to be amongst the assailants – Petitioner in custody for the last 02 years 09 months and 28 days, though involved in various other cases as well -- Only 09 witnesses have been examined so far out of 54 witnesses -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take long time to conclude -- Material witnesses have already been examined – Bail allowed.

(Para 8-12)

Constitution of India, Article 22(5) -- Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (46 of 1988), Section 3 – Preventive detention of accused – Non-mentioning about bail in detention order – Non-decisioning on representation -- Effect of -- Non-mention about the grant of bail in the detention is serious lapse which in turn gives rise to the inference that there is non-application of mind – Right of detenue to prefer representation on his detention is a fundamental right enshrined under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India -- Non-consideration of the representation goes to core of the case -- Detention order quashed.

(Para 7-9)

Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (46 of 1988), Section 3 – Preventive detention – Delay in decision of representation – Non-communication of – Effect of --  Respondents took almost three months to dispose of the representation of the petitioner – Reasons for withholding the decision for almost three months is absent -- Decision taken on the representation must be communicated to the detenue – Delay in disposal of the representation of the detenue seriously affects the valuable rights of the detenue -- Detention order quashed.

(Para 7-10)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 436A – PMLA case – Bail -- Appellant will complete 3½ years of incarceration on 26th May, 2024, half of the prescribed sentence -- Trial has not started, as the charge has not been framed -- Section 436A of Cr.PC will apply even to a case under the PMLA -- But the Court can still deny the relief owing to the ground such as where the trial was delayed at the instance of the accused -- No occasion for the appellant to cause the delay in trial, as even charge has not been framed -- Appellant order to be enlarged on bail on 27th May, 2024 u/s 436A of the Cr.PC.

(Para 3-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Regular bail -- Alleged occurrence, in which the three occupants of the car had given beatings to deceased and injured fled away -- None of the petitioners are named in the FIR, complainant did not disclose in the supplementary statement about the source, by which he came to know about the participation of the petitioners in the crime – Nothing in status report that whether any of the petitioners have any connection with that car -- Material witnesses have already examined --  Petitioners in custody for the last 1 year 2 months and 13 days and none of them have any other criminal case pending against them -- Trial may take time to conclude – Bail allowed.

(Para 7-10)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 494, 34 – Bigamy – Common intention – Quashing of complaint/ order framing charge -- A perusal of the pre-charge evidence led in support of the complaint would reveal that accused No.3 and 4 were not even alleged to be present at the time of such marriage -- Hence, the involvement of these accused for the charge of having a common intention to commit the offence u/s 494 IPC is not established by an iota of evidence -- Criminal case qua them quashed.

(Para 3, 4, 18-22)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 494, 34 – Bigamy – Common intention – Quashing of complaint/ order framing charge -- Accused No. 5, 6 and 7 are friends and they witnessed the alleged bigamous marriage -- Not a shred of allegation by the complainant that these accused, acted as witnesses to the second marriage having knowledge that accused no.1 was already married to the complainant -- Charge of having a common intention to commit the offence u/s 494 IPC is totally unwarranted in the eyes of law -- Allowing the proceedings of the criminal case to be continued against the appellants would tantamount to gross illegality and abuse of the process of Court – Criminal case qua them quashed.

(Para 3, 4, 19-22)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32(1) – Dying declaration -- Once a dying declaration is found to be authentic inspiring confidence of the court, then the same can be relied upon and can be the sole basis for conviction without any corroboration -- However, before accepting such a dying declaration, court must be satisfied that it was rendered voluntarily, it is consistent and credible and that it is devoid of any tutoring.

(Para 25)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32(1) – Dying declaration -- Unless the evidence tendered is tested by cross-examination, it is not creditworthy -- Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act is an exception to this general rule.

(Para 29)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32(1) – Murder -- Dying declaration -- Attending doctor certified that the deceased was capable of narrating her statement -- Substance of the dying declaration is also borne out by the medical history of the patient recorded by the doctor which has also been proved in evidence -- Though there are inconsistencies and improvements in the version of the prosecution witnesses, there is however convergence with the core of the narration of the deceased made in the dying declaration and the medical history recorded by the doctor -- No reason to doubt the correctness of the dying declaration -- Evidence on record, particularly Ex. 59/ dying declaration clearly establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt -- Appellant held guilty.

(Para 35-37)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 50 – NDPS case – Acquittal – Foreign national do not know English, Hindi and Punjabi language – Effect of -- Accused-appellant is from Kenya -- PW3 SI categorically stated that accused did not know Hindi, Punjabi or English language and that she only knew the Kenyan language and was speaking only the said Kenyan language and also disclosed that police party did not know the Kenyan language, which was being spoken by the accused-appellant – It cannot be stated that fair trial has been conducted -- Entire investigation is held to be vitiated on account of the accused not understanding any communication made to her by the police party – There is complete non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and numerous material contradictions in the statements of material witnesses – Appeal allowed, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are set aside.

(Para 25-28)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Cognizance of offence -- When the Magistrate in exercise of his judicial discretion directs investigation u/s 156(3) of Cr. P.C., he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence -- It is only when the Magistrate after applying his mind prefers to follow the procedure under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. by resorting to Section 200, he can be said to have taken cognizance of the offence.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Trial court perused complaint, the documents in support thereof and on submissions and after having been prima facie satisfied, exercised its judicial discretion directing investigation u/s 156(3) of Cr. P.C -- High Court should not have interfered with the same, more particularly while exercising limited powers u/s 482 of Cr. P.C --  Order passed by the High Court set aside, order of Trial Court restored.

(Para 10, 11)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 42 – NDPS Case -- Prior information – Search warrant – Independent witness -- Police received prior information but did not obtain the search warrant because the police apprehended that case property would be destroyed by the delay in procuring the warrant, therefore, it resorted to the provisions of Section 42(2) -- The fact that independent witnesses have not stated anything about preparing the rukka and information under Section 42(2) in their presence and sending the police official with the same shows that there was no compliance with Section 42(2) and the same is fatal to the prosecution case.

(Para 23)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Number of person present at the spot – Inconsistency in – Effect of – Recovery of 1 Kg 200 grams of charas from accused’s house -- Inconsistency regarding the number of persons present on the spot is not minor because the presence of the persons is so intricately connected to the recovery that any inconsistency in the former would affect the latter – Inconsistency cannot be ignored.

(Para 2, 24, 26)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Number of seals – Inconsistency in – Effect of -- Recovery of 1 Kg 200 grams of charas from accused’s house -- Inconsistency regarding the number of seals put on the parcel would show that the testimonies of the witnesses regarding the putting of the seals are not correct, which would affect the integrity of the case property adversely -- Inconsistency cannot be ignored.

(Para 2, 25, 26)

D. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Date of arrest – Inconsistency in – Effect of -- Inconsistency regarding the date of the arrest of the accused will make the whole case of the prosecution suspect because if the accused was arrested on 06.07.2016 and was to be produced before the learned Court on 07.07.2016, the whole of the prosecution case that information was received on 07.07.2016 and recovery was effected on 07.07.2016 in the presence of the accused will become suspect -- Inconsistency cannot be ignored.

(Para 26)

E. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985),  Section 20 – NDPS Case -- Photography of search – Evidential value -- Recovery of 1 Kg 200 grams of charas from accused’s house -- Heavy reliance was placed upon photographs and video recorded the process of search -- Photographs and the video recording could have been used to lend corroboration to the testimonies of the witnesses but when the testimonies are themselves suspect, there can be no question of their corroboration -- Photographs and the video recording by themselves are not substantive pieces of evidence upon which, a conviction can be recorded.

(Para 27)