Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 379, 447, 425, 427, 506, 511, 120-B, 148, 149 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – Harvesting of crops with armed weapons -- Allegations that petitioners along with various other co-accused entered the fields of the complainant and harvested the crop while armed with weapons – Dispute is civil in nature regarding possession of the land in question -- Petition allowed.

(Para 2-5)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Murder – Acquittal -- Dying declaration -- There is no specific material piece of evidence to establish that the deceased was alive or in a position to speak when his brother & mother reached the spot -- Dying declaration cannot be ex facie accepted to be correct unless it stands corroborated by any other cogent evidence -- No material to corroborate the said dying declaration -- Conviction and sentence of the appellants set aside by granting the benefit of doubt – Appellants acquitted.

(Para 16-18)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Appeal against conviction – Acquittal -- Where the evidence on record indicates the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that a plausible view, different from the one expressed by the courts below can be taken, the appellate court should not shy away in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused persons.

(Para 17)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Murder – Acquittal -- Circumstantial evidence -- Deceased has suffered an incise wound which according to the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, is caused by a sharp-edged weapon -- Prosecution has not recovered any sharp-edged weapon – FSL report states that the “pant” sent to them for examination was one dirty blue “terikot pant”, however, as per the recovery memo a “jeans pant” was recovered from the Appellant -- Nothing of these recoveries took place in the presence of an independent witness, the IO has admitted that he did not try to join any private person before carrying out the recoveries --  Evidence adduced gives rise to doubts, improbabilities and inconsistencies -- Prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt -- Appellant acquitted.

(Para 32)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 202, 203, 204 -- Complaint at pre-summoning stage – Dismiss in default -- Statutory scheme provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure does not require the petitioner to appear on each and every date at pre summoning stage and his absence, therefore, cannot be a ground for dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution -- 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 4)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Circumstantial evidence -- Normal approach in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established.

(Para 9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161 – Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C – Involvement of accused during deposition -- If the PWs had failed to mention in their statements u/s 161 CrPC about the involvement of an accused, their subsequent statement before court during trial regarding involvement of that particular accused cannot be relied upon.

(Para 26)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161 – Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C – Improved fact during deposition -- Prosecution cannot seek to prove a fact during trial through a witness which such witness had not stated to police during investigation -- The evidence of that witness regarding the said improved fact is of no significance.

(Para 26)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 136 -- Illiterate witness – Appreciation of evidence led by such a witness has to be treated differently from other kinds of witnesses -- It cannot be subjected to a hyper-technical inquiry and much emphasis ought not to be given to imprecise details that may have been brought out in the evidence -- If there were minor contradictions and inconsistencies, that could have been ignored since the recollection of exact details as to location and time can be attributed to the lack of literacy.

(Para 27, 28)

E. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Circumstantial evidence -- PW-5, a chance witness was in his village, answering the call of nature at 6 am, at which point he claimed to have seen the accused persons going in a jeep -- The side-on view would have been only for a couple of seconds at best, since they were travelling in a jeep – It is not safe to rely on this testimony solely to prove that the appellant was escaping after having murdered his wife.

(Para 29)

F. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 -- Murder – Circumstantial evidence -- Explanation u/s 313 Cr.P.C. -- Main principle to be satisfied in a case of conviction based on circumstantial evidence is that the proved circumstances must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence – There was alive a strong hypothesis that the deceased had committed suicide, which explanation was led by the appellant in his statement u/s 313 CrPC, and it is sufficient to create a doubt.

(Para 30)

G. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 – Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – Evidential value -- Statement of an accused under Section 313 CrPC is no ‘evidence’ because, firstly, it is not on oath and, secondly, the other party i.e. the prosecution does not get an opportunity to cross examine the accused – It cannot form the sole basis of conviction.

(Para 32, 33)

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), Section 7 -- Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957), Section 63 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B, 272, 273, 420, 467, 468, 471 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Misbranded food – Regular bail -- Samples found to be of sub-standard -- Labels of some renowned companies were also found and the spurious ghee was being sold -- Accused were also possessing and selling mis-branded food – It is a moot point as to whether provisions of IPC can be attracted -- Investigation already completed, challan filed – Custody for the last more than 06 months -- Trial may take time to conclude – Bail allowed.

(Para 10, 11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce complaint -- A complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act requires to contain  such factual averments as are necessary to satisfy the ingredients of the said provision, namely, that the cheque/money bill which has been dishonoured was issued to discharge full or partial pre-existing debt liability -- It is not be the pre-requisite of Section 138 of the N.I. Act to plead evidence in the complaint itself -- Once a specific plea has been taken, it can be later on substantiated by adducing evidence at an appropriate stage.

(Para 7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Settlement between parties – Quashing of proceedings – No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, maybe for the reason that there has been a settlement -- Matter is pending since 2018 – Held, once the settlement has been arrived at and the complainant has signed the deed accepting a particular amount in full and final settlement of the default amount and the fine amount awarded by the Trial Court, the proceedings u/s 138 of the NI Act need to be quashed -- Appeal allowed and the proceedings u/s 138 of the NI Act, along with impugned orders passed, stand quashed.

(Para 1-5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Appeal dismissed   -- Matter was thereafter settled between the parties -- High Court rejected the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- Held, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and since the original complainant himself is not interested in prosecuting the proceedings, it is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to give an end to the litigation between the parties -- Order of sentence and conviction set aside.

(Para 3-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985),  Section 20 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- NDPS Case – Appeal against acquittal – Discrepancies in sample -- Investigating Officer had taken a homogeneous sample of 100 grams out of the entire bulk -- Two separate parcels of the sample and remaining bulk were prepared and sealed -- Parcel containing of 100 grams Charas (homogeneous sample) was never sent to SFSL, report Ext. PX verifies the fact that only one parcel containing 7.900 Kgs. of Charas was received in the Laboratory – Three seal impressions were broken and the fourth though partially broken was also not legible -- Doubts created in the prosecution story by the gaps found therein -- In appeal against acquittal the appellate court cannot substitute its view with the view taken by learned trial court unless such view is illegal and perverse -- No ground to interfere with the impugned judgment – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 16-25)

Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (VI of 1978), Section 8 – Constitution of India, Article 22(5) – Preventive detention – Dossier of detention – Non-supply of – Representation – Right of – Detenue has not been provided the Dossier and precluded from making an effective representation -- Failure on the part of detaining authority to supply the material to the detenu renders the detention order illegal and unsustainable -- Non-consideration of the representation amounts to non-compliance of Article 22(5) of the Constitution -- Petition allowed, impugned detention order quashed -- Respondents directed to release the detenu, if he is not required in any other case.

(Para 5-7)

Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, Section 306, 498A – Abetment of suicide – Cruelty against wife – Appeal against acquittal -- SHO without conducting proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C registered the FIR – Statement of the mother of the deceased was recorded u/s 164-A Cr.P.C. after 55 days of the occurrence, whereas the statements of other witnesses were recorded after more than 10 days of the occurrence -- From the evidence, it is clear that some witnesses have made improvements in their statements from their statements recorded during the course of investigation -- Some witnesses have categorically stated that the accused never demanded any dowry in their presence -- Benefit is required to be given to the accused/respondents – In the acquittal appeal, simply because the other view is also possible on the same set of evidence, the judgment of acquittal cannot be reversed -- Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 17-23)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 53A(2) – NDPS Case – Acquittal – Seal used in another FIR -- Whereas case seal ‘DJ’ was not in possession of police but was stated to have been handed over to independent witness PW-4  -- Ld. Special Judge has rightly concluded that seal impression ‘DJ’ never changed hands and it had not been handed over to witness after its use -- Once that be so, the entire case of the prosecution becomes suspect and obviously the respondent has to be given the benefit of doubt as has been given by the learned Special Judge – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 24, 31-34)

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)

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 482 – Complaint against petitioner/ M.D. of Marketing firm -- Sealed packet of sample was drawn from the dealer for the purpose of analysis as manufactured – Dealer and manufacturers have already been acquitted – Held, it would be a futile exercise to continue the proceedings against the petitioner -- Complaint qua the petitioner quashed.

(Para 5-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 173, 401(2) – FIR case -- Revision against charge – Opportunity of hearing to complainant -- Accused in revision petition not made the petitioner/ complainant as party -- Further, the revisional Court also did not issue notice to the petitioner/ complainant -- Order framing charges was quashed and the matter was remanded back for fresh examination – Held, the said order is certainly to the prejudice of the petitioner/ complainant, he was certainly required to be heard before any order was passed by the Revisional Court -- Petition allowed, the impugned order quashed – Revisional Court to proceed the matter in accordance with law.

(Para 12, 13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34, 109, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12, 101(5) – Murder -- Juvenile in conflict with law – Regular bail -- Except the personal opinion expressed by the Children’s Court, there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner would face wrath and outrage from the members of the society in case he is granted the concession of bail – Petitioner is in custody since 14.07.2022 and none of the 37 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, therefore, the trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon -- Further incarceration of the petitioner is not required – Petition allowed.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 34, 341, 365, 379-B, 201, 325, 367 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Snatching case – Regular bail -- Case of version and cross-version, in which both the parties have sustained injuries -- Simply because the complainant party received more injuries comparing to the petitioners, it cannot be adjudicated at this stage as to who was the aggressor, as it will be a matter of trial – Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, petitioners admitted to regular bail.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Acquittal -- Appellant/ complainant happened to be the sole eyewitness but he had neither seen anyone killing his son nor he had deposed that he had seen anyone burning the victim -- He has not deposed anything as to why he had not tried to intervene and save his son from assault or stop the accused persons from taking him away in the car -- He himself had not received any injuries – Appellant/ complainant stated in the FIR that the accused assaulted his son with a knife and iron rod -- He didn’t mention about the use of a pistol by the accused -- However, the police have recovered empty cartridge -- Cause of death as per postmortem is also firing from close range --  Presence of the appellant/ complainant even during the incident appears to be doubtful – Acquittal, upheld.

(Para 8-14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 202 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 324, 326, 452, 504, 506, 34 – Private complaint – Concealment by complainant -- Complaint dismissed without summoning – Revisional court while dismissing revision observed that it appear that the allegations in the complaint do not inspire faith and appear to be manipulated -- Duration of injuries concealed in the translated copies of the MLRs as placed on record, which indicates that petitioner has even tried to mislead the Court -- Process can be refused when the Magistrate finds that evidence led by the complainant is self-contradictory or intrinsically untrustworthy – Petition challenging impugned orders dismissed.

(Para 8-11)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366A -- Writ of habeas corpus -- Muslim law -- Marriage of minor girl – Validity of – Allegation of kidnapping/ procuration of minor girl -- Police protection -- Since the marriage is prima facie valid as per the Mohammedan Personal Law, petitioner/ girl being above the age of 15 years i.e., age of puberty and petitioner/ boy also being of marriageable age, and they having performed Nikaah as per their wish, so the custody of petitioner/ girl is directed to be handed over to petitioner/ boy -- Police will be at liberty to investigate the FIR u/s 363, 366A IPC in accordance with law -- Official respondents directed to keep on providing necessary protection to the petitioners as and when required, after assessing threat perception to their life and liberty.

(Para 16, 18)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- NDPS Case – Appeal against acquittal -- Recovery of 15 Kg 600 grams of poppy straw – Independent witness -- Material contradictions in the statements of the police officials regarding setting up of ‘naka’, chasing of the vehicle of the respondents and arrest -- These contradictions assume greater importance and significance when no independent witnesses, though available, have been associated at the time of the alleged recovery -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 26-29, 37)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- NDPS Case – Appeal against acquittal -- Recovery of 15 Kg 600 grams of poppy straw – Accused fled away -- If the respondents had fled away from the spot where ‘naka’ had been laid, then Court see no reason why the police party should not have chased the vehicle of the respondents till the time they were not actually apprehended and why the police party simply stopped, where respondent No.2 is alleged to have thrown jute sack containing poppy straw -- Every reasonable police personnel would have continued chasing the respondents until apprehended – It makes the entire prosecution case unreliable and highly doubtful -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 29, 37)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- NDPS Case – Appeal against acquittal -- Recovery of 15 Kg 600 grams of poppy straw – Facsimile of seal -- Exhibit PX is the report of the Laboratory wherein it is mentioned that the seals on the gunny bag parcel were tallied with the seal impression sent by the SHO on form NCB-1 i.e. Ext. PW16/A -- However, a perusal of Ext. PW16/A shows that facsimile of seal ‘A’ affixed on this form is not at all clear or legible -- This assumes importance because it has not at all been mentioned in the report that the seals on the gunny bag were compared with the sample seals or the sample seals were deposited in the laboratory along with the case property – Ld. Special Judge rightly observed, it cannot be said with certainty that the case property which was examined in the laboratory was the same which was allegedly recovered from the respondents -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 32-34, 37)

D. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15 -- NDPS Case – Appeal against acquittal -- Recovery of 15 Kg 600 grams of poppy straw – Non-examination of car -- Specific case of the prosecution that some dust of ‘Chura Post’ was lying on the rear seat of the car which car was then taken possession of by the police -- If that be so, then why photographs of the ‘Chura Post’ that was stated to be lying on the rear seat of the car were not taken and, above all, why the so-called dust of ‘Chura Post’ was not sent for chemical analysis, is not at all forthcoming – Held, there is no material on record which may remotely suggest that the respondents had kept the jute bag containing ‘Chura Post’ on the backseat of the car and thereafter had thrown the same, as alleged by the prosecution – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 35-37)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case  -- Demand Notice -- If in a notice while giving the break-up of the claim the cheque amount interest, damages, etc. are separately specified and these additional claims would be severable, such demand would not invalidate the notice -- In a notice of demand made under the N.I. Act demand shall not be omnibus, there must be a clear demand for the cheque amount lest notice will be invalid.

(Para 6)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce case  -- Invalid Demand Notice – Quashing of summoning order -- Omnibus demand for Rs.6,50,000/- was made in addition to the demand for interest @12 per annum since the date of returning of the cheque, Rs.50,000/- towards damages and Rs.5,500/- as notice charge -- Demand is omnibus as relates the amount of Rs.6,50,000/-, it is not the cheque amount – Notice of demand is invalid – Summoning order quashed.

(Para 8)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Abetment of suicide -- Two suicide notes -- Suicide notes recovered from the person of the deceased mentions that he had loaned Rs. 3,00,000/- to the respondent-accused seven months ago and since he was demanding his money back, she had been blackmailing him -- Different pens and inks were used in writing the suicide notes -- There is no proximity between the alleged act of the accused-respondent and suicide of the deceased – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 7-16)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Abetment of suicide -- Appeal against acquittal -- 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 – No perversity or illegality pointed out – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 14-16)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 384, 506, 420, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Extortion – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 23.08.2023 and none of the 08 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far -- Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon -- Further incarceration is not required, moreso, when a co-accused has been granted the concession of bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 4-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 21 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case – Regular bail -- Petitioner was found in possession of an intermediate quantity of heroin and a small quantity of Charas, hence, rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply -- Petitioner was selling narcotics to various persons -- Statement of any purchaser was not recorded to show that he had purchased the narcotic from the petitioner -- Version that the petitioner is a Drug Peddler is not acceptable -- Petitioner in custody since 19.10.2023 -- Result of analysis is awaited, challan is not likely to be filed soon and the trial of the case will take some time -- Petitioner was found involved in NDPS Act for the first time and he deserves a chance to reform himself -- Continued detention of the petitioner in custody will make the chance of reformation bleak as he will come in contact with the hardened criminals – Bail allowed.

(Para 11-16)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case – Regular bail – Disclosure statement -- Petitioner cannot be detained in custody based on a statement made by the co-accused and the call details as these do not constitute a legally admissible piece of evidence -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 16, 17)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the complaint – Order declaring the petitioner proclaimed person and the order for registration of FIR u/s 174-A IPC quashed.

(Para 9-13)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 144 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Prohibition order u/s 144 Cr.P.C. – Violation of – FIR u/s 188 IPC  -- Peaceful protest -- More than 100 persons had died in the State of Punjab due to illicit and spurious liquor -- Being public representatives, the petitioners were peacefully going to meet the Chief Minister of Punjab to bring his attention to their grievances -- Petitioners had every right to protest democratically, and they did so in peace -- Merely bringing the Chief Minister of Punjab's attention to an important issue through a peaceful protest does not amount to an offence under section 188 IPC.

(Para 11-13)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 144 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Mens rea – Peaceful protest -- It is sufficient that the offender knows of the order they disobey and that such disobedience produced or is likely to produce harm -- State has not gathered any evidence to primafacie establish the essential ingredients and what disobedience the petitioner caused in this regard -- An offence u/s 188 of the IPC is not made out.

(Para 17)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 144, 173, 190, 195 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 – FIR u/s 188 IPC  -- Bar of Section 195 CrPC – Prosecution launched on police report u/s 173 (2) CrPC for the commission of an offence punishable u/s 188 IPC, whereas section 195(1)(a)(i) bars the Court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable u/s 188 of the IPC unless there is written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of their lawful order -- Police report, being not a complaint, could not have been made the basis for taking cognizance of the offence u/s 188 of the IPC, and the concerned Court had no jurisdiction to summon the accused -- Order of dismissal of the application for discharge violates the mandatory provision of section 195(1) of CrPC, 1973 -- Complaint and the police report (Challan) u/s 173 CrPC filed in FIR quashed and set aside.

(Para 18-26)

A. Disaster Management Act, 2005 (53 of 2005), Section 22 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Covid-19 proclamation – Non-wearing of mask -- When the proclamation was in force, the petitioner was noticed on a public street in the morning at 6.30 am, and when the police officials asked him to wear a mask, he did not cooperate and argued with the police -- It is not alleged that the petitioner was in somebody else's company -- Petitioner was walking alone, so even if he was not wearing a mask, he did not commit any offence that would violate Section 188 IPC – FIR quashed.

(Para 9-12)

B. Disaster Management Act, 2005 (53 of 2005), Section 22 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Covid-19 proclamation – Non-wearing of mask -- It is not the complainant’s case that the petitioner in any manner was instrumental in causing any injury, that is, by spreading the Covid 19 -- Further there is no evidence like medical record that he was tested for Covid or had any visible symptoms thereof -- Thus, in the absence of any harm or obstruction caused to anybody, not wearing of mask would not tantamount to violation of Section 188 IPC -- FIR quashed.

(Para 12)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 -- NDPS Case -- Independent witness -- Association of independent witness is not the requirement of law -- Conviction can be recorded on the basis of statement of police witnesses only, provided their statements inspire confidence and are consistent with the hypothesis suggested against the accused.

(Para 22)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 -- NDPS Case – Acquittal -- Material contradictions in the statements of spot witnesses -- Statement of investigating officer, clearly appears that either he was not on the spot or he had manipulated the records with some ulterior motives -- His entire version is quite contrary to the prosecution story – A serious doubt has been created and it is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that every doubt in prosecution story has to benefit the cause of accused -- In such circumstances the omission of the Investigating Officer to associate independent witness also assumes significance – Appellant acquitted.

(Para 29-35)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Cruelty to wife -- Anticipatory bail – Non-performing of conjugal rights – Ground of -- High Court dismissed the petition by observing that in view of the adamant attitude of the appellant in not resuming the conjugal life with the opposite party No.2 in the house of the appellant, where the opposite party No.2 was staying, his petition could not be considered – Held, neither such condition should have been imposed by the High Court while granting an anticipatory bail, nor such could be a ground for rejection of the petition filed by the appellant – Order set aside, in case of arrest of the appellant, he ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 193 -- Summoning of additional accused – Evaluation of evidence – Requirement of -- Trial Court summoned the petitioners u/s 193 Cr.P.C. without evaluating the evidence and assessment of the material available against the persons sought to be summoned and then adjudging whether such material, more or less, carry the same weightage and value as has been testified against those who are already facing trial – Impugned order set aside matter remanded back.

(Para 7-9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 193 -- Summoning of additional accused – Power of -- FIR is not an encyclopaedia and mere statement of the complainant reiterating the contents of FIR/ complaint not substantiated by any credible material, cannot be a ground to invoke the power to summon an additional accused under Section 193 Cr.P.C.

(Para 9)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 193 -- Summoning of additional accused – Evaluation of evidence – Requirement of – Trial Court has not gone into the statements of witnesses attached with the final report before passing the impugned order --- Without any reasoning that there was some “evidence”  on the basis of which it can be gathered that they appear to be guilty of the offence and the said evidence can be utilised for corroboration and to support the allegations levelled in the FIR -- Impugned order set aside matter remanded back.

(Para 9)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Preserving of call details and tower location – Right of accused -- Preserving and requisitioning of the call details and tower location details would be necessary, otherwise the same would be lost forever -- Right of accused to invoke the provisions of Section 91 Cr.P.C. for obtaining documents in support of his defence has been recognized by the Constitutional Courts -- Legislative intent behind enactment of Section 91 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that no cogent material or evidence involved in the issue remains undiscovered in unearthing the true facts during investigation, enquiry, trial or other proceedings.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Preserving of call details and tower location – Right of accused -- While passing the appropriate direction for preserving and production of call details/tower location details under Section 91 Cr.P.C. would violate the right to privacy of the police officials but the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in ensuring free and fair investigation/trial would prevail over the right to privacy of the police officials.

(Para 8)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 65A, 65B -- Preserving of call details and tower location – Right of accused -- Denial of an adequate opportunity to the accused by non-production of the electronic record, which is admissible under Section 65-A and 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act in criminal trial, would amount to miscarriage of justice -- Power under 91 Cr.P.C. must be exercised for production of such evidence, which would assist the Court in discovering the truth in the pursuit of justice.

(Para 9)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Preserving of call details and tower location – Right of accused -- As principles of natural justice are integral part of fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, any denial of the best available evidence or effective and substantial hearing to accused in proving defence would amount to denial of free and fair trial.

(Para 10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320, 397, 401 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Conviction by trial Court affirmed by Appellate Court – Acquittal on compromise --  Once a settlement is being effected, then in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 320 Cr.P.C., the accused ought to be acquitted as the offence stands compounded -- Revision petition allowed and the judgment of Appellate Court and judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court set aside -- Petitioner acquitted.

(Para 8-12)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Abetment to suicide – Quashing of summoning order -- Borrowing of Rs, 60,000/- -- Incident in shop of the first appellant threatening and assaulting complainant and her husband was on 15th June 2017 -- After that, notice u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was issued by “S” to the deceased on 27th June 2017 -- Suicide note was written three days after that, on 30th June 2017 -- Deceased committed suicide three days thereafter -- No allegation that any act was done by the appellants in the close proximity to the date of suicide -- By no stretch of the imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to instigation to commit suicide -- Offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC not made out -- Continuation of prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law -- Summoning order quashed.

(Para 8-13)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107 – Abetment to suicide -- Mens-rea – Instigation -- To attract the first clause, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide --  Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide -- The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide -- Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide.

(Para 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439, 482 – Bail in 41 FIRs – Common surety – Bail bond – Petitioner was involved in 41 cases of similar nature – Petitioner was ordered to be released on bail, however, even after a lapse of considerable period, the petitioner has not been released on bail on account of his inability to give separate sureties/personal bonds in each and every case –  Held, condition of furnishing a surety in each and every case separately, would be highly onerous – Trial Court/ Illaqua Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate directed to release the petitioner on bail in all the 41 cases on his executing one personal bond, in each case, as well as four common sureties, which would hold good for all the 41 cases.

(Para 11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 29, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case -- Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Alleged recovery of charas was 3.428 kgs -- Since only two samples of 26 grams each were sent to chemical examination that too without making the entire bulk homogenous, recovery, if any, from the bail petitioner can be said to be only of 52 grams, which is a small quantity -- Rigours of Section 37 of the Act not attracted – Bail allowed.

(Para 8-17)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143A – Cheque bounce complaint -- Interim compensation -- The Court had wide discretion to grant the interim maintenance, which could vary from 1% to 20% -- Trial Court granted the interim compensation in very casual and routine manner – No reasons recorded for granting 20% of the amount of the cheque in question as interim compensation – Matter remanded back to the trial Court to reconsider the issue regarding the payment of interim compensation.

(Para 9, 10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 7, 138 – Cheque bounce complaint – Prosecution of -- Drawer of cheque – Joint account -- Though, the cheque has been drawn on a joint bank account of the petitioner and her husband, but the cheque in question has been signed by her husband only and the liability regarding the dishonour of the cheque can be fastened on the drawer of the cheque -- Mere fact that the petitioner happens to be the spouse of the co-accused is hardly sufficient to condemn her as co-accused with him – Complaint and summoning order quashed qua the petitioner/ wife.

(Para 8-12)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity -- Regular bail – Recovery of 2400 tablets of ‘Parvion Spas’ -- Petitioner in custody since 28.07.2021 -- Trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future -- Court deemed it appropriate to allow the petition by dispensing with the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Bail allowed.

(Para 3, 8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- NDPS case -- Jump of bail – Wrong date noted by clerk of counsel --  Petitioner directed to surrender before the Special Court within a period of 10 days and on his appearance, he shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds subject to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

(Para 2-6)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Suspension of sentence in appeal – Deposit of 20% compensation amount – Deposit of minimum 20% amount is not an absolute rule, not accommodating any exception -- When Appellate Court considers the prayer u/s 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an accused, it is always open for the Appellate Court to consider whether it is an exceptional case, which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/ compensation amount -- In case, the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded.

(Para 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439, 482 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Regular bail -- Interim bail – High Court was of the view that prolonged incarceration with no prospect of the trial coming to an end makes a case for the grant of bail -- High Court granted bail only for 45 days by describing it as an interim bail -- But after granting the interim bail finally disposed of the bail application – Held, if an order granting interim bail was to be passed, the bail application should have been kept pending – When a Court concludes that the accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail pending trial, granting bail only for a limited duration is illegal -- Such orders violate the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- It puts an additional burden on the litigant as he is forced to file a fresh bail application for an extension of the bail granted earlier -- Appeal allowed, by modifying the impugned order, appellant enlarged on bail until the final disposal of the case.

(Para 4-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 438 – Cheating -- Anticipatory bail -- Habitual offender – 16 complaints/ FIR pending – Petitioners have not only cheated the present complainant but several other criminal complaints have been filed against them -- Apart from that,  petitioner No.2 was declared a proclaimed person and four FIRs were registered against him in this regard -- Thus, there are chances that the petitioners may abscond from the process of law -- Custodial interrogation of the petitioners would be required in the case – Petition dismissed.

(Para 1, 6-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 323, 325, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 54, 59 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(2)(v) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail -- Role and injury attributed to the appellant is on the thumb of the complainant -- Appellant in custody since 17.08.2022 -- As many as 20 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution and the evidence is yet to start, hence, the trial would take considerable time to conclude – Concession of bail granted to petitioner.

(Para 3-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860)Section 306, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Abetment to suicide – Anticipatory  bail -- On the contention that a criminal case was registered against the deceased u/s 377 of the IPC and allegedly on account of the deceased having felt humiliated he ended his life by consuming poison, interim bail granted --  Petitioner has joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency -- Petitioner not required for custodial interrogation -- Interim order made absolute.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B(2), 34, 411 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Snatching case – Regular  bail -- Petitioner is behind the bars since 25.05.2023 -- Final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court on 25.08.2023 and out of 15 prosecution witnesses none has been examined so far -- Charges are yet to be framed -- Trial of the case would take long time to conclude – Bail allowed.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Punjab Travel Professionals’ Regulation Act, 2012, Section 13 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Compromise quashing of FIR – Parties  have settled their dispute amicably -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive -- It will be in the interest of justice, if the settlement reached between the parties is accepted -- FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 2, 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 386, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190, 482 – Quashing of FIR – After filing of the challan, charges have already been framed by the trial Court – Petitioner has already filed criminal complaint so as to put forth his stand – No justification for quashing of the FIR.

(Para 3, 4)