A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 202 – Accused residing beyond jurisdiction – Enquiry before summoning -- Enquiry with respect to Section 202 CrPC can be conducted by the Magistrate himself – It is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process has to be issued or not -- Neither there was any requirement to join the accused nor it is required that all the witnesses shall be examined.

(Para 4, 6, 6.1)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 202 – Accused residing beyond jurisdiction – Enquiry before summoning -- Process issued after the complainant examined as many as six witnesses including himself and a handwriting expert after considering the documents brought on record by the complainant and the documents/ reports brought on record by the handwriting expert -- Requirement of enquiry substantially complied with.

(Para 4, 6.2)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(2), 13(1)(e) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 109 – Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 8(3) – Suspension of conviction/ sentence -- High Court overturned the acquittal and has convicted the appellant for three years – Appellant who is a MLA will incur disqualification as a result of the conviction -- High Court has not considered the main question whether the view taken by the Special Court was a possible view -- Conviction and sentence suspended. Afjal Ansari’s case (2024) 2 SCC 187 relied.

(Para 2-6)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing of complaint – Basic ingredients – Requirement of -- Submission that complaint does not contain date of presentation of cheque before the bank, the date of return of the cheque as unpaid from the bank, the date of issuing mandatory notice within 30 days and the date of service of such notice on the drawee – Held, complaint cannot proceed u/s 138 of the N.I. Act without the basic ingredients being mentioned therein – Proceedings of Complaint case quashed.

(Para 2, 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 406, 468 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Cheating -- Petitioner already facing prosecution u/s 138 of the NI Act -- Submitted that mere dishonour of cheque does not amount to cheating – Appeal allowed, in case of arrest petitioner be released on bail by the arresting/ investigating officer/ trial court.

(Para 1-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323 -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 4 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4 – Appeal against acquittal – Duty of Appellate Court -- Limitation -- Trial Court acquitted the appellants -- Sessions Court convicted the appellants, however, granted a relief of probation -- High Court has not gone into the question, whether the Sessions Court was aware of the limitations of the appeal against acquittal -- 3 prosecution witnesses and 7 defence witnesses have been examined, there is not even a reference to the depositions of the said witnesses in the impugned judgment -- Impugned order set aside, matter  remanded for fresh consideration by the High Court.

(Para 3-5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Cheque bounce case -- Appeal against conviction -- Suspension of sentence – Pre-condition of deposit of 20% of compensation amount -- Appellate Court required to consider whether the case falls in the exception or not -- Appellate Court directed to re-examine the case.

(Para 4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174A – Settlement in cheque bounce complaint – Proclaimed person -- Quashing o FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Proceedings under the N.I. Act culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the complaint – F.I.R. u/s 174-A of IPC along with all subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 11-13)

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 384, 506, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Extortion – Anticipatory bail -- On the contention that the maximum sentence provided for commission of offences as alleged in the FIR is upto 3 years and no notice u/s 41-A Cr.P.C. was issued -- Petitioners joined the investigation and are not required for further custodial interrogation – Interim order made absolute -- Petition allowed.

(Para 2-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 506, 120-B -- Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2013 (32 of 2014), Section 3 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Cheating with investors – Regular bail -- Amount of Rs.7 lakh deposited in the account of petitioner by the complainant -- Petitioner arrested on 28.12.2020, only 11 witnesses out of the 68 cited by the prosecution have been examined till date -- Husband of the petitioner, who is the prime accused is behind bars – Whole case of the prosecution rests on documentary evidence, which has already been collected by the police and is part of the challan – Bail allowed.

(Para 3-7)

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (104 of 1956), Section 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Objectionable position at Spa Centre – Quashing of FIR – For the past 4½ years, none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined and the petitioner is facing the agony of prolonged trial – Owner as well as the Manager of the Spa against whom specific allegation was levelled, have been exonerated by the Investigating Agency – Petitioner at best was found in the objectionable position with one of the girls working in the said spa – No offence u/s 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the 1956 Act read with section 120-B IPC made out – FIR and all the subsequent proceedings quashed qua the petitioner.

(Para 5-7)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Legally enforceable liability -- Loan -- Money lending licence – Requirement of -- Complainant was involved in money-lending business without possessing any valid license -- Respondent/ accused used to borrow money from him -- Claim of the applicant/ complainant against the respondent is an unenforceable claim and thus, cannot be considered a legally enforceable liability u/s 138 of the NI Act.

(Para 4)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Acquittal by Trial court – Leave to appeal -- Power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of acquittal on the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence is subject to the settled law that where two views are possible and out of the two, one points towards the innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail over the other pointing towards his guilt.

(Para 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 204 -- Complaint – Dismiss in default – Permissibility of -- Before issuance of process u/s 204 of Cr.P.C. the complaint cannot be dismissed in default for non-prosecution due to the non-appearance of the complainant.

(Para 6-8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 406 -- Transfer of cheque bounce complaint -- Proprietor of the Complainant Company is working at Mumbai -- Yet the cheque was presented before the Bank at Darbhanga which led to the proceeding u/s 138 of the Act initiated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, Bihar -- Just because the respondent/ complainant who is a permanent resident of Darbhanga or has business interest in Bihar, may not justify filing of a case in another Court when all the transactions were in Mumbai -- Project site is at Maharashtra -- Complaint transferred to Mumbai.

(Para 4-8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Appellant was a mere employee, apart from being a lady, and was not the main accused -- Main accused was the sole proprietor, the allegations are primarily against him, who is no more -- No purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings against the appellant -- Impugned orders are set aside.

(Para 2-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(wa), 372, 377 -- Appeal by victim for enhancement of sentence – Maintainability of -- Right of petitioner/ victim to prefer an appeal against an order of the criminal Court are in the following three cases only i.e.,

1. Acquittal of the accused person;

2. Conviction of the accused person for a lesser offence; and

3. Imposition of inadequate compensation.

No appeal by the victim against the adequacy of sentence awarded is envisaged by the Criminal Procedure Code -- Only the State Government is empowered u/s 377 of Cr.P.C. to prefer an appeal against the adequacy of the sentence awarded and seek enhancement of the same – Appeal by petitioner/ victim not maintainable.

(Para 6-8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing of – Resignation of Director – Effect of -- Whether a appellant/ Director who has resigned from such position and which fact stands recorded in the books as per the relevant rules and statutory provisions, can be held liable for certain negotiable instruments, failing realization – Complainant not placed any materials on record indicating complicity of the appellants in the alleged crime -- Appellants had no role in the issuance of the instrument -- After the appellants have severed their ties with the Respondent-Company and, therefore, can in no way be responsible for the conduct of business at the relevant time – All criminal proceedings pertaining to the appellants arising out of the complaints filed by the respondent quashed.

(Para 2-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311, 397, 401 – Summoning of material witness u/s 311 Cr.P.C. – Maintainability of revision – The highest Court of the land has unequivocally ruled on the non-maintainability of a revision petition against an interlocutory order passed u/s 311 Cr.P.C. – Disregarding or revisiting a judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court would undermine the integrity of the legal system and erode the foundation of justice itself – Revision petitions dismissed, being not maintainable.

(Para 1, 9-11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(a), 22 -- NDPS case – Recovery of unbranded loose capsules -- Out of 1130 capsules, two samples of 10 capsules each were separated and therefrom only one sample was sent to FSL -- As per report of FSL, 648 mg of “Dextropropoxyphene Napsylate”, was found in each capsule -- Entire recovery could not have been presumed to have contained the salt of “Dextropropoxyphene Napsylate” -- Ld. Special judge convicted the respondent/ accused for sentence already undergone of 06 months & 02 days besides imposition of fine of Rs.3000/- and in case of default, RI for 15 days -- No illegality or perversity – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 7-9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 18, 25, 29 -- NDPS case -- Summoning of call details -- High Court directed all Courts in the State of Rajasthan that whenever an application is moved to summon the Call-details by the accused during the criminal proceedings, the same shall not be deferred and will be decided forthwith -- Accused cannot invoke and would not have right to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing of charge -- Impugned order set aside.

(Para 2, 7, 8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 – Acquittal by trial court – Scope of appeal -- Scope of intervention in a criminal appeal -- It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, unless proven guilty -- Presumption continues at all stages of the trial and finally culminates into a fact when the case ends in acquittal -- Presumption of innocence gets concretized when the case ends in acquittal -- Higher threshold is expected to rebut the same in appeal.

(Para 24)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 – Acquittal by trial court – Scope of appeal -- There is no inhibition on the High Court to re-appreciate or re-visit the evidence on record -- However, the power of the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence is a qualified power, especially when the order under challenge is of acquittal.

-- The first and foremost question to be asked is whether the Trial Court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due consideration to all material pieces of evidence

-- The second point for consideration is whether the finding of the Trial Court is illegal or affected by an error of law or fact

-- If not, the third consideration is whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a fairly possible view.

A decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion -- What is required is an illegality or perversity -- When two views are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the accused is the safest course of action -- Furthermore, it is also settled that if the view of the Trial Court, in a case of acquittal, is a plausible view, it is not open for the High Court to convict the accused by reappreciating the evidence.

(Para 25, 26)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 –  Acquittal by trial court – Scope of appeal -- Criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty -- All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice -- The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:

(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive – inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;

(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;

(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.

(Para 36)

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Section 21 (1) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Mining case – Anticipatory bail -- On the contention that petitioner has already obtained all requisite permissions including the registration certificate from the competent authority, no mining material has been recovered at the spot, involved in the case on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, FIR indicates that no offence under Section 379 of IPC and Act, 1957 is a special statute that provides a complete mechanism for dealing with any violation of the Act and Section 379 of the IPC was added in the FIR only to make the offence non-bailable, which is in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner was admitted to interim bail -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and is no more required for custodial interrogation – Interim order made absolute.

(Para 1-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 304 Part II – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Death of the deceased occurred on account of his chance intervention in the fight between the accused and PW-3 – No intention on the part of the accused to cause the offence as against the deceased -- Appellant must be given the benefit of conversion of the offence from 302 to 304 Part II – Appellant already in custody for over 14 years excluding the period of remission  -- Maximum punishment is only 10 years or with fine or with both -- Appellant ordered to be released.

(Para 6-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 304 Part II – Murder -- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Offence and the death of the deceased occurred on account of his chance intervention in the fight between the accused and PW-3 – Court do not think that there was any intention on the part of the accused to cause the offence as against the deceased -- Appellant must be given the benefit of conversion of the offence from 302 to 304 Part II – Since, appellant has already undergone 14 years without remission, he must also be given the benefit of immediate release – Appeal allowed.

(Para 6-10)

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (14 of 1981), Section 33A, 49  -- Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974), Section 33A, 43 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 --  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(d), 4(2), 482 -- Quashing of FIR -- Offence for Water and Air pollution and Section 188 of IPC – Criminal complaint – Section 33A of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the provisions of Indian Penal Code are expressly excluded -- Statutory scheme under Act, 1974 and Act, 1981 provides that the prosecution under them can only be launched by way of a complaint case an FIR cannot be registered under the provisions of the same – Held, impugned FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are void ab initio and are liable to be quashed -- FIR quashed.

(Para 6-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 307 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Murder – Anticipatory bail -- No documentary evidence or allegations leveled in the FIR that the petitioner at the time of alleged occurrence had instigated the main accused, or even provided the weapon of offence -- Only his presence at the time of alleged occurrence had been shown and that too, in the supplementary statement after two days of the alleged occurrence – Anticipatory bail allowed.

(Para 1, 6, 7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 482 – Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Enhancement of compensation u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- Jurisdiction of High Court -- Revision against conviction -- Complainant filed an application u/s 482 of the Code primarily seeking enhancement of compensation – No jurisdictional error on the part of the High Court in passing the order after entertaining the application u/s 482 of the Code.

(Para 2, 3)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376AB -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3/4, 5(d)/6, 42 -- Rape of minor girl aged 7 years – Sentence of punishment -- Appellant was aged 40 year at the time of offence -- High Court commuted Capital sentence to life sentence -- Court are also to take into account the present age of the petitioner and the fact that he has already undergone the incarceration – Life sentence modified to a fixed term of sentence of 30 years with fine of Rs.1 lac.

(Para 7, 16, 17)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 376 AB – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3/4, 5(d)/6, 42 -- Punishment for rape on woman under twelve years of age – Sentence for 30 years -- Fine for medical expenses -- When a sentence of imprisonment for a term not less than 20 years which may extend upto life imprisonment is imposed, the convict is also liable to suffer a sentence of fine which shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim which quantified as Rupees One Lakh and the same shall be paid to the victim with respect to the conviction u/s 363, IPC -- No separate sentence for the aforesaid offence under POCSO Act is to be imposed on the petitioner-convict.

(Para 11, 16, 17, 20)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of cheque bounce complaint – Drawer of cheque – Requirement of -- Proceeding in the complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act was quashed vis-à-vis respondent No. 2 on the ground that he was not the drawer of the cheque -- Above view of the High Court cannot be faulted qua the second respondent – Special Leave Petitions dismissed.

(Para 3, 4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Quashing of conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Compounding of offence – Non-consent of complainant – Cheque amounting Rs.1,50,000/-, appellant deposited Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a., further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited with the Trial Court as suggested by Court --  Respondent/ complainant ought to have come forward to compound the offence – Held, Court not appreciated the stand taken by the respondent, especially when the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- more than what was ordered to be paid by the Trial Court -- Conviction of the appellant quashed and set aside.

(Para 3-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder of husband – Regular bail -- Petitioner was arrested on 01.04.2021 and is in custody since then -- Out of 13, 4 witnesses, who are private and vital witnesses, have been examined -- Taking into consideration the period already spent by the petitioner in custody, coupled with the fact that she is required to take care of her three minor children, however, without expressing any views on the merits of the case, bail granted.

(Para 4, 5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Amendment in title of complaint – Trial court allowed amendment of title of the complaint by replacing (Firm name) as the complainant with only (Name of Director) – Held, amendment is merely formal in nature and does not impact the heart of the case -- Moreover, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the amendment allowed in the case title and he can still raise all pleas available to him.

(Para 4, 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 243 – Prosecution witness in defence -- Whether a witness which has been shown in the prosecution list but not examined on behalf of the prosecution, can be permitted to be examined as a defence witness – Held, there is no bar in the law for examining the said witness as defence witness – Appellant permitted to examine the prosecution witness as defence witness.

(Para 2-4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- Fixed sentence – Appeal against conviction – Suspension of sentence -- Out five years, the appellant has undergone half of the sentence – Appeal not likely to reach before he completes the entire sentence, a case is made out for grant of suspension of sentence – When there is a fixed term sentence and especially when the appeal is not likely to be heard before completing entire period of sentence, normally suspension of sentence and bail should be granted.

(Para 1-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173(8), 190 – Further investigation – Protest petition -- Second respondent was not put up for trial for offences u/s 376, 417 and 420 of IPC – Appellant, instead of moving protest petition, moved an application captioned as “under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.” -- Averments made in that application reveal that the appellant protested against deletion of charges u/s 376, 417 and 420 of IPC and she made an endeavour to bring on record the material which would prima facie establish the commission of these offences – Magistrate can treat it as Protest Petition and then decide the same on merits -- A technicality like the caption of the application/petition could not be an impediment.

(Para 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Cheating – Protracted trial – Sentence reduced to already undergone -- Criminal complaint filed in the year 1998, the petitioner is facing agony of a protracted trial, which has lasted for approximately 25 years -- Out of the total sentence of 3 years u/s 420 IPC, the petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 6 months and 7 days -- In the interest of justice sentence reduced to the period already undergone by petitioner -- Fine increased to Rs.10,000/- in default of fine rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(Para 13, 14)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 504, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190, 200, 482 -- Criminal  breach of trust – Criminal intimidation – Quashing of complaint/ summoning order -- Commercial disputes over variation of rate cannot per se give rise to an offence u/s 405 of the 1860 Code without presence of any aggravating factor leading to the substantiation of its ingredients -- Dispute pertains to the revision of rate per unit in an ongoing commercial transaction -- A commercial dispute, which ought to have been resolved through the forum of Civil Court has been given criminal colour by lifting from the penal code certain words or phrases and implanting them in a criminal complaint – There is only reproduction of part of the statutory provision giving rise to the offence of criminal intimidation, this would constitute a mere bald allegation -- Criminal complaint and summoning order quashed.

(Para 19-21)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190, 200 -- At the stage of issuing summons a magistrate only needs to be satisfied with a prima facie case for taking cognizance, the duty of the magistrate is also to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding.

(Para 18)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375, 376 – Rape – False promise to marry -- If the consent of the victim is based on misconception, such consent is immaterial as it is not a voluntary consent -- If it is established that from the inception, the consent by the victim is a result of a false promise to marry, there will be no consent, and in such a case, the offence of rape will be made out.

(Para 7)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(2), 377, 504, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape – False promise to marry – Quashing of charge-sheet -- Physical relationship started in 2012, though prosecutrix claimed that it was a forced relationship, she did not make any grievance about it till February 2018 -- In February 2013 and in December 2017, the prosecutrix was pregnant -- It is not the case of the prosecutrix that from February 2013 to December 2017, the appellant forced the second respondent to maintain the physical relationship -- In July 2017, there was an engagement ceremony between the appellant and the prosecutrix – Taking the prosecution case as correct, it is not possible to accept that the prosecutrix maintained a physical relationship only because the appellant had given a promise of marriage – Charge-sheet and further proceedings quashed.

(Para 9-15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 500 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 202 -- Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a) – Criminal defamation – News article – Freedom of speech -- News article published bearing a title “Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj” -- News article in question was published in good faith and in exercise of the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India – All proceedings in pursuance of the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant u/s 500 of the IPC quashed.

(Para 2, 8-11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused -- Petitioner never raised any grievance by filing a complaint to the senior police officers -- Improvements made while deposing before the learned trial Court cannot form the basis for exercising the extraordinary power u/s 319 Cr.P.C -- Mere statement of the complainant, which is not substantiated by any credible material, cannot be a ground to invoke the discretionary and extraordinary power of the  Court to summon an additional accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C.

(Para 3)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused -- In the absence of any material suggesting existence of more than prima facie case available during the course of trial of an offence, courts ought to refrain themselves from exercising its discretionary and extraordinary power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

(Para 3)

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(xi) -- Offence under SC/ST Act – Intention -- Offence of outraging the modesty should be committed with the intention that the victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste category.

(Para 8)

B. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(xi) -- Offence under SC/ST Act – Prosecutrix/ complainant was engaged for doing household jobs in the house of the accused appellant who tried to outrage her modesty while the prosecutrix/ complainant was doing the household chores -- Offending act was not committed by the accused with the intention that he was doing so upon a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste – Appellant acquitted of the charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.

(Para 9-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34, 362, 201, 392, 411, 414 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody since 8.10.2018 but only 02 of the 33 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far -- Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for a right to speedy Trial which prima facie seems to have been violated in the instant case -- Further incarceration of the petitioner is not required – Bail allowed.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420,406, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail -- Cheating – Criminal breach of trust -- Breach of agreement to sell -- Every breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless the fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction -- Allegations of failure to keep a promise will not be enough to initiate the criminal proceedings -- Agreement to sell in favour of the complainant, however, sale deed in favour of other -- Complainant, instead of initiating the civil proceedings, had got the FIR registered -- Both the petitioners were the attesting witnesses to the agreement and had joined the investigation -- Documents had already been collected by the police and their custodial interrogation is not required -- Interim orders made absolute.

(Para 1, 7, 8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Appeal in cheque bounce conviction – Suspension of sentence – Deposit of 20% compensation -- Appellate Court passed order in a mechanical manner without giving any reasons directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court within 60 days – Direction to deposit 20% of compensation amount set aside, appellate Court directed to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner seeking suspension of sentence in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari’s case 2023 (10) SCC 446 -- Till fresh orders are passed, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(X) – Abuse to SC/ST community -- It is settled position of law that insulting or intimidating a person belonging to scheduled castes/ scheduled tribes will not by itself amount to an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to SC/ST community.

(Para 20)

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(X) -- Abuse to SC/ST -- Appeal against conviction -- Prosecution has not produced or proved scheduled caste certificate of complainant during the trial -- Evident from testimony of PW-1/ Complainant, that the appellant did not hurl any abuses to the complainant in the name of his caste – PW-2 and PW-3 stated that the appellant hurled abuses to the complainant by addressing him as “kuttia chuharia”, in their presence however, they nowhere stated that the complainant belongs to scheduled caste – PW-3 have dispute with appellant with regard to shamlat land and the panchayat was convened -- PW-2 stated that he also accompanied the complainant to police station to lodge complaint regarding incident in question and police recorded his statement but no such statement of PW-1 recorded by the police is available on the record -- No member of the gram panchayat was examined by the complainant/prosecution in order to prove the case -- Occurrence of 20.07.2000 and the complaint with regard to said incident was lodged by the complainant in the Court of Sub Divisional, Judicial Magistrate on 03.08.2000 -- In the absence of any independent corroboration, the benefit of aforesaid delay in lodging of the complaint goes in favour of the appellant – Appeal allowed, appellant acquitted.

(Para 21-25)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- Trial Court is empowered to impose conditions u/s 451 of the IPC, however, these conditions must not be excessively burdensome to the extent of practically negating the relief sought by an individual, as in the instant case.

(Para 8)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379 -- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Section 21(1), 4(A) --  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 -- Superdari of vehicle -- Onerous condition of 25% cash deposit imposed by the trial Court upon the petitioner set aside -- Vehicle ordered to be released on supurdari to the petitioner on his furnishing supurdginama (bond) of Rs.5 lacs to the satisfaction of the trial Court/ Duty Magistrate.

(Para 8-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439, 482 -- Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 136 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379 – Bail in 23 cases – Personal bond and common surety -- Petitioner booked 31 cases under Electricity Act. Out of those 31, in 23 cases he stands admitted to bail -- Petitioner is not been able to furnish separate bail bonds in each of the cases – Direction given to the Courts below to release the petitioner on bail in the 23 cases on executing one personal bond in each of the case as well as two common sureties of the like sum which shall hold good for all the 23 cases.

(Para 2-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 148, 149, 201 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner behind the bars since 02.11.2022 – Final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. submitted on 11.01.2023 -- Out of 29 witnesses cited by the prosecution, none has been examined so far –  Culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of the trial – Keeping the petitioner in further detention, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Bail allowed.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 342, 379-B, 384, 506, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Snatching case – Regular bail -- Petitioner in custody since 21.07.2023 -- None of the 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far -- Trial is not likely to be concluded anytime soon -- Compromise arrived between the parties – Bail allowed.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 326, 506, 201, 120-B -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail -- 13 out of 24 witnesses cited by the prosecution have already been examined and trial may come to an end early -- Material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case -- It will not be proper to keep the appellants detained, once it has come in the testimony of the material witnesses that appellants are not the assailants – Bail allowed.

(Para 7-9)