A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused – Court has wide powers to summon a person as an additional who has been exonerated by the Investigating Agency, if it finds that there is sufficient evidence available against the said person in order to try him along with the accused already facing trial -- However, there is no compelling duty to summon an accused – Discretionary power so conferred should only be exercised to achieve justice and must be based on the quality of evidence collected.

(Para 12)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused – Court being the sole repository of justice, there is a duty cast upon it to uphold the law and ensure that the real accused should not get away by manipulating the Investigating Agency/Prosecuting Agency -- What the Court needs to examine while adjudicating upon an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is that there should be evidence available on the file in the shape of oral evidence or documentary evidence in order to invoke its powers to summon an additional accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C.

(Para 12)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 , 34 – Murder -- Summoning of additional accused – Hearsay evidence -- When the FIR was registered, no reference was made of the nephews disclosing to the petitioner that their mother had been assaulted – Deposition of the petitioner that he had been told by his nephews about the assault on their mother at the instance of the father and the grand-mother would amount to ‘hear say’ evidence and thus, inadmissible -- No admissible evidence available on the record to summon the respondent No.2 as an additional accused to face trial alongwith the charge-sheeted accused – Application dismissed by Trial court – Order upheld.

(Para 1, 13)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder – Cognizable offence -- Registration of FIR -- Deceased, brother of the appellant was severely beaten and brutally assaulted by the accused and he succumbed to injuries -- Thereafter, the appellant and others had gone to the concerned police station to register the crime, however the same was not registered -- Appellant thereafter submitted the complaints to the concerned respondents however no action was taken to register the complaint – Held, in view of the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari’s case (2014) 2 SCC 1, registration of FIR is mandatory u/s 154 of CrPC, if the information discloses commission of cognizable offence -- Appeal allowed and direction given to concerned respondents to proceed further with the complaints filed by the appellant in accordance with law.

(Para 3-7)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 – Cognizable offence – Registration of FIR – Summary of law rendered by Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari’s case (2014) 2 SCC 1 reiterated –

“120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.]

120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

120.3 If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

120.4 The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

120.5 The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.

120.6 As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

(a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes

(b) Commercial offences

(c) Medical negligence cases

(d) Corruption cases

(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.

120.7 While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and, in any case, it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.

120.8 Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.”

(Para 5)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 195A, 386 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Threat to withdraw FIR – Extortion -- Quashing of FIR -- To give threat to a person to withdraw a complaint or FIR or settle the dispute would not attract Section 195A of the IPC -- Nowhere the first informant has stated that out of fear, she paid Rs. 10 Lakh to the accused persons – No offence under Section 386 of the IPC can be said to have been made out -- FIR quashed.

(Para 16, 24-26)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 191, 195A – False evidence -- The word “false” in Section 195A should be read in the context with what has been explained in Section 191 of the IPC which falls in Chapter XI – of False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice.

(Para 16)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 383, 386 – Extortion -- One of the necessary ingredients of the offence of extortion is that the victim must be induced to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, etc. -- Delivery of the property must be with consent which has been obtained by putting the person in fear of any injury -- Forcibly taking any property will not come under this definition -- Nothing to indicate that there was actual delivery of possession of property (money) by the person put in fear -- In the absence of anything to even remotely suggest that the first informant parted with a particular amount after being put to fear of any injury, no offence under Section 386 of the IPC can be said to have been made out.

(Para 22-24)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 – Inherent powers of Court – Quashing of FIR -- Once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/ complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings -- Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/ registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation.

(Para 26)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 194, 195, 199, 200, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail -- Two material witnesses examined and have not supported the prosecution case -- Whether the remaining evidence is sufficient to inculpate the petitioner and his co-accused shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the Trial – Petitioner in custody since 15.10.2021 and only 08 out of 36 prosecution witnesses have been examined – Bail allowed.

(Para 6-7)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Test Identification Parade (TIP) -- If the accused are already shown to the witnesses in the Police Station, then the sanctity of TIP before the court is doubtful.

(Para 13)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9, 106 -- Circumstantial evidence – Appellants already shown to the witnesses in the Police Station, then the sanctity of TIP before the court is doubtful -- Call Detail Records (CDRs) of the mobile used by the accused to show that their location was at the place of incident -- Mobile numbers alleged to have been used by accused is not in his name but one person resident of Kanpur -- No evidence placed on record to show as to how the said SIM came to be in possession of the accused – Apart from that, if at the time of the incident both accused were at the same place and according to the prosecution inside the house of the deceased, and they were talking to each other on telephone, this itself creates a doubt on the prosecution version -- Evidence with regard to last seen theory is totally unreliable -- Appellants acquitted.

(Para 14, 15, 22)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Guilt of accused – Circumstantial evidence -- Circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established -- Facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty -- Circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved, and that there must be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused -- It is a settled principle of law that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt.

(Para 18, 19)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 482 – Quashing of Proceedings – Inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C – Trustworthy of witness -- Whether the testimony of the witnesses is trustworthy or not has to be found out from the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of the witnesses when they stand in the box at the stage of  trial – Held, such an exercise, is not permissible while exercising the jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

(Para 5, 6)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder – Quashing of proceedings -- Inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C – Trustworthy of witness -- Scope of interference, while quashing the proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and that too for a serious offence like Section 302 of IPC is very limited -- High Court has almost conducted a mini trial and quashed the proceedings -- High Court has elaborately discussed the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 of the Cr.P.C. -- It is not permissible for the High Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the material placed by the prosecution in the chargesheet -- Order passed by the High Court set aside.

(Para 4-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 153, 153-A, 212, 216, 120-B -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Regular bail – Allegation that petitioner alongwith other unknown persons was illegally supplying arms and ammunitions and funding separatists with an intent to create disturbance in the name of religion, at the instance of Pakistani Agency ISI and, to target the leaders of religious organizations and political leaders to disturb peace and tranquility in Punjab – Petitioner is in preventive custody for past more than 11 months -- Petitioner is a 23-year old young student, was aspirant to study further in Canada, where he had though secured admission, but was apprehended at the airport when he was leaving from India -- He has already done his food course from the Food Craft Institute and also worked for the Taj group at the Taj Hotel Resorts and Palaces -- No probability of tampering with evidence as the same has already been seized by the investigating agency -- Co-accused of the petitioner have been granted concession of bail -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 401 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4, 5 -- Conviction u/s 452, 324, 323, 506 IPC – Accused released on probation – Probation period already stands expired -- Compensation as ordered by the Appellate Court already stand deposited – Held, nothing survives in the criminal revision, dismissed.

(Para 1-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Abetment to suicide – Regular bail -- Petitioner is a lady of the age of 33 years having two minor children -- Petitioner was married to the deceased – Although the allegations have been levelled against the petitioner not only in the FIR but also so stated in the suicide note but these are to be seen only at the time of adducing evidence -- Incarceration of the petitioner is more than 6 months – Petition allowed.

(Para 5-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 333, 353, 451 – Deter public servant to discharge his duty -- Caused fracture in little right finger – House trespass -- Appellant held guilty of the offences punishable u/s 333, 353 and 451 of the IPC – Leniency in sentence shown considering the facts and circumstances that:

a. For espousing the cause of the labourers, the appellant visited the office of the Directorate;

b. Evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 (a peon working in the Office of the Commissioner) indicated that the appellant had sent a slip of her name to PW-6 which was kept on the table of PW-6 as she wanted to meet him. After waiting for a considerable time, as she was not allowed to meet PW-6, she forced her entry to his cabin and complained that she was made to wait;

c. PW-1 admitted that the appellant was not annoyed with her. She stated that the appellant did not indulge in any scuffle with her. When she tried to stop the appellant, she was pushed by the appellant and that is how she received injury to her little right finger;

d. The incident is more than thirty years old;

e. During the last thirty and a half years, when the trial and appeal were pending, the appellant was all throughout on bail. Even in this appeal, an exemption has been granted to her from the requirement of surrendering;

f. During this long period of more than 30 long years, there was no allegation of any objectionable activity by her; and

g. The appellant is a female whose present age is 62 years.

appellant sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs.30,000/- for the offence u/s 333 IPC, fine of Rs.20,000/- u/s 353 IPC and sentence for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/ u/s 451 IPC -- Substantive sentences ordered to run concurrently.

(Para 5-10)

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

(Para 3-7)

A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 19 -- Corruption case – Sanction for prosecution – Validity of -- Stages of proceedings at which an accused could raise the issue with regard to the validity of the sanction would be the stage when the Court takes cognizance of the offence, the stage when the charge is to be framed by the Court or at the stage when the trial is complete i.e., at the stage of final arguments in the trial -- Such issue of course, could be raised before the Court in appeal, revision or confirmation, however the powers of such court would be subject to sub-section (3) and sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the said Act.

(Para 10)

B. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 19 -- Corruption case – Sanction for prosecution – Validity of -- Competence of the court trying the accused would be dependent upon the existence of the validity of sanction, and therefore it is always desirable to raise the issue of validity of sanction at the earliest point of time -- In case the sanction is found to be invalid, the trial court can discharge the accused and relegate the parties to a stage where the competent authority may grant a fresh sanction for the prosecution in accordance with the law.

(Para 10)

C. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 19 -- Corruption case – Sanction for prosecution from Superior authority – Validity of – Challenge to -- Special Judge, while dismissing the third application filed by the respondent seeking discharge after examination of 17 witnesses by the prosecution, specifically held that the sanction accorded by the government which was a superior authority to the Karnataka Water Supply Board, of which the respondent was an employee, was proper and valid -- Such findings recorded by the Special Judge could not have been and should not have been reversed or altered by the High Court in the petition filed by the respondent challenging the said order of the Special Judge, in view of the specific bar contained in sub-section (3) of Section 19, and that too without recording any opinion as to how a failure of justice had in fact been occasioned to the respondent-accused as contemplated in the said sub-section (3).

(Para 14)

D. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 19 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227 -- Corruption case – Sanction for prosecution -- Discharge of accused -- Interlocutory application seeking discharge in the midst of trial would not be maintainable -- Once the cognizance was taken by the Special Judge and the charge was framed against the accused, the trial could neither have been stayed nor scuttled in the midst of it in view of Section 19(3) of the said Act -- Issue of validity of sanction was raised at the earlier point of time, the same was not pressed for -- Only stage open to the accused in that situation was to raise the said issue at the final arguments in the trial in accordance with law.

(Para 15)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 17 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular  bail – Recovery of 1.5 kg of opium -- Custody 3 months and 3 days -- Petitioner on interim bail since 29.09.2022, not misused the liberty granted; not involved in any other case under NDPS Act; challan was presented on 20.08.2022, however, charges have not yet been framed and in all there are 16 witnesses -- Trial is likely to take a considerable time, thus his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose -- Regular bail allowed.

(Para 2, 6, 7)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 25, 35 – NDPS case – Transportation of poppy husk -- Punishment for allowing vehicle -- Presumption of culpable mental state -- Crucial words used in section 25 are “knowingly permits it to be used for the commission of the offense by any other persons.” -- Intent of Section 25 and Section 35 is parametria the same but carves a special role upon the investigation while proving an offense u/s 25 of the NDPS Act because of the usage of the word “knowingly.” -- Thus, the presumption u/s 35 of the NDPS Act is similar to the intent of Section 25 of the NDPS Act, and as such, Section 35 of the NDPS Act would not dilute the burden that the Legislature had put upon the investigator in section 25 of the NDPS Act – Held, presumption u/s 35 of the NDPS Act would not apply in the case u/s 25 of the NDPS Act if there is not even an iota of evidence regarding knowingly permitting the usage of the things mentioned in Section 35 of the NDPS Act for the commission of the offence.

(Para 13)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 25, 35 – NDPS case – Transportation of poppy husk – No evidence that the appellant knew about the other two convicts transporting the poppy husk in his tractor trolly or that he had permitted them to do so for this purpose -- Essential requirements to prove knowledge are missing -- Impugned judgment convicting the appellant u/s 25 of the NDPS Act is not in consonance with the law -- Appeal allowed, appellant acquitted.

(Para 14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 499, 500, 52 – Complaint to SDM -- Defamation – Good faith -- Whether the allegations made in the complaint addressed to the SDM make out the offence u/s 500 IPC or not? – Held, no case is made out to put the appellant to trial for the alleged offence -- No defamation as such -- Exception 8 to Section 499 clearly indicates that it is not a defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with regard to the subject-matter of accusation.

(Para 15, 16)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Amendment/ correction w.r.t. to cheque number in complaint -- Typographical error, which originated from the legal notice, was indeed unintentional -- Application to correct the cheque numbers approved -- Proceedings shall continue based on the corrected cheque numbers, which are already on record before the trial court for further proceedings in the trial -- Proceedings shall commence from the same stage.

(Para 9-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Counterfeited currency – Regular  bail -- Petitioner in preventive custody merely on an unfounded suspicion that if he is let out, he may either tamper with evidence and/or influence witnesses -- Offence allegedly committed by petitioner is of non-violent nature and in that sense his release on bail is not a threat to society at large by committing any violent crime – Bail allowed.

(Para 7-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 304 Part-I – Murder -- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Father of PW-1 refused to provide Rs.500/- for NCC Camp -- PW-1 narrated the said incident to her mother, who asked father to give the said amount, even then, the father did not provide the said amount -- Thereafter, a quarrel started between father and mother – Mother gave blows with a stick on the head and legs of her father, he sustained injuries, which led to his death -- Stick by no means, can be called a deadly weapon -- Possibility of the appellant causing the death of the deceased while being deprived of the power of self-control, due to the provocation on account of the deceased not agreeing to pay Rs.500/- to PW-1, cannot be ruled out – Appellant held entitled to benefit of doubt, inasmuch as the offence committed shall fall under Exception I of Section 300 IPC -- Appeal allowed, conviction of the appellant altered from Section 302 of the IPC to Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC.

(Para 12-16)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder – Acquittal – Non-examination of Viscera – Consumption of tranquillizer -- Post-mortem report refrains to give any opinion about the cause of demise on the premise that the report of the chemical examiner upon the viscera of the deceased is awaited – Non-making of examination(s) thereof, cannot lead to an opinion, that the deceased had died on account of his either voluntary consuming or becoming forcibly administered rather any tranquillizer -- When no candid material exist(s) on record suggestive about the cause of demise of the deceased, irrespective of the fact that the body of the deceased was found in the premises of the convict-appellant,  no conclusion can be made that the convict-appellant had any incriminatory role in the demise of the deceased -- Appellant acquitted.

(Para 19, 29)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder – Acquittal – Report of the pathologist – Report states that the condition of the lungs of the deceased showed mild congestion and the said fact is also spoken by PW-16 in his cross-examination -- Cause of demise of the deceased was owing to a lung infection, which may have remained untreated -- Consequently, the demise of the deceased appears to be natural than homicidal -- Appellant acquitted.

(Para 21, 29)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 326 -- Charge – Grievous hurt -- Injury resulted into avulsion fracture, completely severing the digital phalanx of the two fingers of the complainant -- Specific allegation in the FIR that weapon used was iron rod having sharp edge -- Injury is grievous in nature -- No reason for the Trial Court to decline the application for addition of Section 326 IPC -- Impugned order set aside -- Trial Court directed to frame charge u/s 326 IPC as well.

(Para 13-15)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211, 216 – Charge – Alteration of charge -- Prima facie case -- Charge can be altered as per Section 216 Cr.P.C. at any stage before pronouncement of judgment -- Only prima facie case is to be seen at the stage – Charge should be as wide as possible – Ultimately, if offence of lessor gravity is found to have been committed comparing to the offence charged, conviction can be recorded accordingly -- However, if on conclusion of trial, graver offence is found to have been committed as compared to the offence charged, then de novo trial may have to be ordered depending upon the circumstances.

(Para 14)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439 -- Anticipatory bail – Regular bail -- Paramount considerations in cases where bail or anticipatory bail is claimed are the nature and gravity of the offence, the propensity or ability of the accused to influence evidence during investigation or interfere with the trial process by threatening or otherwise trying to influence the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused to flee from justice and other such considerations -- During the trial, the court is always in control of the proceedings, and it is open for it to impose any condition which it deems necessary to ensure the accused’s presence and participation in the trial.

(Para 9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A – Bail after chargesheet -- Once the chargesheet was filed and there was no impediment, at least on the part of the accused, the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted the bail as a matter of course -- However, the court did not do so but mechanically rejected and, virtually, to rub salt in the wound directed the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail before the Trial Court -- High Court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach -- Impugned order of rejecting the bail and directing the appellant, to surrender and later seek bail, therefore, cannot stand and set aside.

(Para 12)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A – Dowry case -- Cruelty – Anticipatory bail -- Regular Bail -- Directions given in Arnesh Kumar’s case (2014) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15107 reiterated and other directions issued:

-- All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 CrPC;

-- All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);

-- The police officer- shall forward the check list duly filled and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;

-- The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;

-- The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

-- Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41-A CrPC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;

-- Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before the High Court having territorial jurisdiction.

-- Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

-- Directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the case under Section 498-A IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a terms which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years, whether with or without fine.

-- The High Court shall frame the above directions in the form of notifications and guidelines to be followed by the Sessions courts and all other and criminal courts dealing with various offences.

-- Likewise, the Director General of Police in all States shall ensure that strict instructions in terms of above directions are issued. Both the High Courts and the DGP’s of all States shall ensure that such guidelines and Directives/Departmental Circulars are issued for guidance of all lower courts and police authorities in each State within eight weeks from today.

-- Affidavits of compliance shall be filed before this court within ten weeks by all the states and High Courts, though their Registrars.

High Courts and the Police Authorities in all States are required to comply with the above directions in the manner within the time frame mentioned.

(Para 12, 13)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6, 33(5) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 506 – Rape with minor – Re-summoning of POCSO victim for cross-examination -- Bar u/s 33(5) POCSO Act may not be absolute and balance of rights needs to be maintained u/s 33(5) of POCSO Act and Section 311 of Cr.P.C. -- Court’s discretion in exercising its power to re-summon a witness for cross-examination has to be exercised with circumspection, caution and utmost sensitivity – Crucial word used in Section 33(5) of POCSO Act is “called repeatedly” -- This Section thus has to be interpreted to balance and applied with the right u/s 311 Cr.P.C. of accused and right to fair trial of an accused depending on facts and circumstances of each case.

(Para 10)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6, 33(5) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 506 – Rape with minor -- Re-examination of POCSO victim for cross-examination – Change of counsel -- Victim was only seven years of age at the time of incident in the year 2016 -- Child victim re-lived the trauma of perverse sexual assault upon her at a very tender age of seven years, once, when she was sexually assaulted, thereafter while recording her statement before the police and u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate and thereafter before the learned Trial Court while recording her evidence – Victim cannot be directed to appear once again after six years to depose about the same incident, only on the ground that the previous counsel had cross-examined the witness in a manner which the new counsel does not find sufficient or appropriate -- Change of counsel cannot be a ground for re-summoning of the witnesses -- Though the accused has to be granted and ensured a fair trial, it cannot mean being afforded unjustified repeated opportunities of cross-examination in every case to indicate fair trial.

(Para 13-21)

C. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- POCSO Act is not gender based and is neutral as far as victim children are concerned.

(Para 14)

D. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Misuse of POCSO law – Ground of -- Any law, whether gender based or not, has the potential of being misused -- Legislature cannot stop enacting laws nor judiciary can stop applying such laws since they have been enacted to curb the larger menace of commission of such offences and getting justice to genuine victims.

(Para 15)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 458, 460, 323, 285, 302, 148, 149 -- Additional accused -- Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. – Discussion on merits of evidence – Stage of -- Merits of the evidence has to be appreciated only during the trial, by cross examination of the witnesses and scrutiny of the Court not to be done at the stage of Section 319 -- High Court did not appreciate the important fact that the charges being faced by the accused were u/ss 458, 460, 323, 285, 302, 148 and 149 of IPC -- For attracting the offence u/s 149 IPC, one simply has to be a part of an unlawful assembly, any specific individual role or act is not material -- At the stage of summoning an accused, there has to be a prima facie satisfaction of the Court -- Court can stop the trial at that stage itself if such application had been moved u/s 319 -- Prosecution had fully made out its case for summoning u/s 319 Cr.PC -- Order of the High Court set aside.

(Para 4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 201, 210 – FIR as well as private complaint – Same incident – Summoning in complaint case – Permissibility of -- JMIC was conscious of the fact that FIR was registered on account of the same incident – Impugned order summoning the petitioners have been passed in derogation of the procedure as prescribed under Section 210 Cr.P.C -- It was incumbent upon the trial Court to stay the proceedings of the inquiry/ trial and call for a report on the matter from the Police Officer, who is conducting the investigation -- Trial Court having failed to resort to the mandatory procedure, the impugned order cannot be sustained, set aside.

(Para 6-9)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 218 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of FIR -- Cheating and forgery – Challan presented -- Mutation in favour of the petitioner is relating to only that land, which was validly allotted and he had made the complete payment -- If the revenue official had initially entered a deficient mutation and the same is corrected subsequently; either on the application of the petitioner or otherwise, no fault could be found with that – Any other fact, regarding some DDR entry or some order or absence of any other order passed by any Authority is only ancillary fact; which cannot be raised to the level of introducing criminality -- FIR and all consequent proceedings, quashed.

(Para 4-6)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 218 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 482 -- Cheating and forgery – Challan presented -- Quashing of FIR –  Permissibility of -- Submission that challan has been filed, therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed -- Court not found any substance in the said argument -- Once, the complaint itself is baseless, then merely because some witnesses have repeated the ipse dixit of the complaint which is based on non-existent facts or the facts against the undisputed record, before the Investigating Officer; that does not lend any legal or jurisprudential support to the report filed by the Investigating Officer -- FIR can be quashed even after filing of report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court -- FIR and all consequent proceedings, quashed.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 10 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 104 – Impounding of passport -- Power u/s 104 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to impound a passport -- Reason is that the provisions of the PP Act which deal with the specific subject of impounding passports shall prevail over Section 104 of Cr.P.C. Suresh Nanda’s case (2008) 3 SCC 674 referred.

(Para 8)

B. Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 10 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 102(1) – Seizure/ Impounding of passport -- Section 102 (1) of Cr.P.C., the Police have the power to seize the passport but there is no power to impound the same -- If the power of seizure of a passport is exercised u/s 102, the Police cannot withhold the said document and the same must be forwarded to the Passport Authority -- Thereafter, Passport Authority to decide whether the passport needs to be impounded. Suresh Nanda’s case (2008) 3 SCC 674 referred.

(Para 8)

C. Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 10 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91, 102 -- Passport taken in custody u/s 91 of Cr.P.C – Court fail to understand why the passport of the appellant was required for the purpose of the pending criminal case -- As there was neither a seizure of the passport nor impounding thereof, the appellant was entitled to return of the passport.

(Para 9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 50 – NDPS case -- Offer u/s 50 of the NDPS Act -- Independent witness did not support the case of the prosecution -- As per Section 50 of the NDPS Act, option required to be given was that he has a right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer; whereas the option which was given to him was that whether the accused opted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Civil Gazetted Officer or before him – Word ‘Magistrate’ was missing from the notice -- Mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with, which goes to the root of the case and no conviction can be based on such a defective option – Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence cannot be upheld -- Appeal allowed, bail bonds discharged.

(Para 9, 11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) – Cheque bounce complaint – Appeal against acquittal -- Accused paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- during proceedings of the complaint clearly stating that he be given time to pay the balance amount – He did not dispute at that time that his liability was only to the extent of Rs.50,000/- -- This statement, making payment of Rs.50,000/- by the accused, also indicates that accused had the legal liability towards the complainant – Cheque for Rs. 2,25,658.08 dishonored on account of insufficient funds – Respondent/ accused failed to make payment despite statutory notice -- Acquittal recorded by the trial Court cannot be at all sustained, set aside -- Accused-respondent held guilty u/s 138 of the NI Act and convicted.

(Para 15-17)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 279, 304-A – Death by rash and negligent driving – Sentence for 2 months 29 days -- Considering that petitioner is first time offender and has faced agony of trial for a considerable long period, to meet the ends of justice sentence reduced to 2 months & 29 days, the period already undergone by him.

(Para 9-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 324, 148, 149 -- Version and cross-version case – Acquittal -- Once the genesis of occurrence has been suppressed, it is not a case where the Court can separate grain from chaff and believe that the silence of the complainants does not prejudice the case of the accused -- Injuries received by the accused were not simple which could be ignored, but were dangerous to life -- Non-explanation of injuries on the accused can be fatal to the prosecution's case – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 1, 10-12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 34, 326, 324, 323, 201 – Attempt to murder -- Regular bail -- Version and cross-version case -- Which party is the aggressor party would be adjudicated upon during the course of trial -- Petitioner is in custody since 15.03.2023 and none of the 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far -- Trial is not likely to be concluded soon -- Co-accused have been granted the concession of anticipatory bail -- As such, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 3-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34, 323 – Hurt – Common intention – Acquittal -- Prosecution did not clearly establish that the appellants/ accused assaulted the deceased -- In the absence of any incriminating material or other corroborative evidence pointing the participation of appellants-accused in the incident, the conviction u/s 323 read with Section 34 of IPC cannot be sustained – Appeal allowed, appellants acquitted.

(Para 9-12)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 366 -- Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (6 of 2007), Section 10 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164 -- Penetrative sexual assault – Marriage with minor girl – Acquittal -- In statement u/s 164 of the Cr. PC, the victim deposed that she was in love with the appellant, had consumed poison, and had even been hospitalized because she was adamant to live with the appellant -- No doubt, she resiled from her statement, yet, the medical evidence indicated that the victim had a ruptured hymen; there was no external injury at her private parts – Prosecution was not able to establish that there was any penetrative sexual assault as a result of coercion or compulsion on the part of the appellant – Held, M’s statement u/s 164 of the Cr. PC contained a truthful narration of the events -- Impugned judgment set aside the charge u/s 366 IPC against the appellant -- Charges u/s 6 of the POCSO Act as well as Section 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, cannot be sustained -- Conviction and sentence set aside.

(Para 20-22)

Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 150, 153 -- Theft of electricity – Civil Liability – Jurisdiction of Special Court -- Special Court constituted u/s 153 of the Act do not have jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide civil liability in absence of pendency of trial of offence referred to in Sections 135 to 140 and Section 150 of the Act.

(Para 7-9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 338 – Grievous hurt endangering life or personal safety – Limitation – Cognizance by court -- No Court shall take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation and the period of limitation shall be 03 years, if the offence is punishable with an imprisonment for a term exceeding 01 year, but not exceeding 03 years and the period of limitation shall commence from the date of the registration of the FIR – FIR is dated 24.07.2011, even till today, a formal charge-sheet has not been filed by the police and the cognizance in the present case shall be barred by the period of limitation -- Prosecution is apparently barred by limitation – FIR u/s 338 of IPC alongwith all consequential proceedings quashed.

(Para 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B -- Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (8 of 1975), Sections 10, 12 – Regular bail -- Fake bank guarantees for issuance of license to develop housing project -- Petitioner's continued custody is based on the alleged coerced custodial statement of Co-accused, which lacks independent credibility and may not be per se admissible in trial – Transfer of Rs. 30,00,000/- into the petitioner's account from the company's account, explained -- Petitioner languishing in jail for the past more than 2 months in preventive custody – Petitioner is the sole bread winner, his father requires constant medical attention -- Petitioner has clean antecedents -- Investigation qua petitioner complete and petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 2, 6-9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 22, 25, 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Regular bail -- Petitioner has undergone more than 04 years of custody -- No contraband has been recovered from him coupled with the fact that no other material except the disclosure statement of the co-accused has been brought to the notice of this Court so as to connect the petitioner with the allegation alleged in the FIR, the petitioner has made out a case for the grant of regular bail.

(Para 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 299 , 302, 304A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Murder – Culpable homicide – Death by Fire arm -- Gross negligence -- When the incident occurred, the change lever was not kept in a safety position by the appellant and therefore, SAF got cocked which resulted in the firing of five bullets -- Appellant must take the blame for not taking the elementary precaution of keeping the change lever in the safety position -- U/s 313 of CrPC, the case of the prosecution that he intentionally opened fire by aiming at the deceased was not put to the appellant -- Theory of the prosecution that the appellant fired intentionally has not been established – Accidental fire took place and that is how the appellant became responsible for the death – Not a case of culpable homicide as defined u/s 299 of IPC -- Gross negligence on the part of the appellant which led to a loss of human life -- Appellant is guilty of a lesser offence punishable u/s 304A of IPC, conviction u/s 302 of the IPC set aside.

(Para 14-20)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Extension of period of Parole – Petitioner released on parole -- Suffered a fracture on his right ankle joint – Held, jurisdiction at this stage not exercisable by High Court, but is exercisable only by the Competent Authority -- Review jurisdiction exercisable only in case a declining order is made by the Competent Authority -- Prayer is mis-constituted, and, is liable to be rejected – However, one week protection from step into prison given and one week time granted to move application before competent authority for extension of parole, then on such application valid speaking order shall be expeditiously recorded.

(Para 3, 4)

A. Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 6 -- Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 – Refusal of Passport, travel documents etc. -- Show cause notice -- Opportunity of hearing – Reasons for denial -- Right to travel abroad is part of fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India -- State can deny right to travel subject to compliance of safeguard in the form of show cause notice, opportunity of hearing and order disclosing reasons for the denial.

(Para 10)

B. Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 6 -- Constitution of India, Article 14, 19(1)(a), (g), 21 -- Refusal of Passport, travel documents etc. -- Umpteen number of persons are travelling abroad for the sake of business or employment -- If these persons are mechanically denied passport or permission to visit abroad, without allaying fear to flee from justice, not only would deprive them from their right to earn livelihood but also violate their fundamental right to freedom of business and profession, guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India -- Denial of passport not only amounts to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14 & 21 but also freedom of speech, business and trade contemplated by Article 19(1)(a) and (g) of the Constitution unless and until procedure prescribed by law is followed.

(Para 26)

C. Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 6(2) (f), (e) -- Right to Passport -- Registration of FIR – Criminal trial – Conviction – Acquittal -- Effect of – Held:

i) Clause (f) of Section 6(2) of Passport Act, 1967 is inapplicable to post conviction or post acquittal proceedings.

ii) As soon as a person is convicted or acquitted, he would be governed by Clause (e) of Section 6(2) of 1967 Act.

iii) Notification dated 25.8.1993 is applicable to criminal proceedings pending before trial court and as per instructions dated 10.10.2019, mere registration of FIR is not sufficient whereas a case should be registered before Court and Court must have taken cognizance.

iv) Clause (e) of Section 6(2) can be invoked if an applicant; within 5 years preceding the date of application, for the commission of an offence involving moral turpitude has been sentenced to imprisonment of not less than 2 years.

v) High Court is not criminal court in terms of Section 6(2)(f) of the 1967 Act.

(Para 27)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 2 (xxiii-a), 2 (vii-a), 8, 20 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS Case -- Regular bail – Recovery of 795 grams of charas from the petitioner – Petitioner is in custody since 26.04.2023 -- As per Table prepared u/s 2 (xxiii-a) and Section 2 (vii-a) of the Act, 1985, lesser than 100 grams of charas is small quantity and greater than 01 Kilogram of charas is commercial quantity (Entry No.23) – There is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period --  Bail allowed.

(Para 2-8)

Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 3(1)(aa) – Parole – To meet and take care of family – Petitioner has never been released on parole earlier – Concession of parole to a convict is regulated by the statute and the authorities thereunder cannot act arbitrarily and capriciously -- Rejection of the application seeking parole by a convict should be through a well-reasoned and speaking order -- Two co-convicts have already been granted the concession of parole though one of them was found using mobile phone in the jail -- Petitioner ordered to be released on parole for a period of six weeks.

(Para 12-14)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Compounding after conviction – Waiver of compounding charges -- Acquittal -- Conviction for two years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.18,00,000/- to be paid to the complainant-respondent as compensation, affirmed by Sessions Court -- Petitioner permitted to compound the offence -- Considering the mitigating circumstances,  compounding charges reduced to Rs.10,000/- -- Judgment of conviction/ order of sentence recorded set aside and petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

(Para 14)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3, 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376AB, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Penetrative sexual assault -- Rape on woman under 12 years of age/Section 376AB IPC – Regular bail -- During the trial, victim aged about 14 years (PW1) and informant (PW2), mother of the victim, have been examined – Victim (PW1) and her mother (PW2) did not support the case of the prosecution and applicant has no criminal history – Held, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merit of the case, applicant deserves bail at this stage -- Bail allowed.

(Para 4-7)

A. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Murder -- Juvenile in conflict with law – Trial as Adult -- Bail – Applicability of Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act -- Held, appellant/CCL was directed to be tried like an adult, but still he remains a juvenile in conflict with law and can never be denied the benefit of Section 12 of the “Act”.

(Para 9)

B. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Murder -- Juvenile in conflict with law – Trial as Adult -- Bail – Appellant was arrested on 07.12.2020 and is continuing in custody which may bring him in association with any known criminals and his right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is also violated – Appeal allowed, the appellant is ordered to be released on bail pending trial.

(Para 10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque by Karta of HUF – Summoning of members of HUF – Quashing of complaint/ summoning order -- When cheque was issued by “karta” in the name of HUF and liability of the HUF is not disputed, in the absence of “Karta”, it cannot be denied that liability of HUF on account of cheque issued in its name still remains, which will obviously devolve on its members or upon the one who shall become “Karta” – At this stage, pending proceedings before the trial Court cannot be quashed -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 2-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 323, 325, 148, 149 –  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 54, 59A – Attempt to murder/307-IPC – Rioting, armed with deadly weapon/148-IPC – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Statement of parties with regard to compromise recorded -- No useful purpose would be served to continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant F.I.R. – F.I.R and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise quashed qua the petitioner.

(Para 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 308, 341, 323, 506 –  Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Attempt to commit culpable homicide/308-IPC – Offence under SC/ST Act -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Statement of parties with regard to compromise recorded -- No useful purpose would be served to continue with the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant F.I.R. – F.I.R and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise quashed qua the petitioner.

(Para 5, 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 41.26 grms. of Heroin on secret information -- As per the pleadings it is a case of false implication and the petitioner was forcibly picked up in a private vehicle by Crime Branch and thereafter implicated in the present case – Recovery from the petitioner is of non-commercial quantity and he is in custody since 07.04.2023, challan stands presented qua the petitioner -- Conclusion of trial is likely to take time, no useful purpose would be served by depriving the personal liberty of the petitioner – Bail granted.

(Para 5)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 --  Cheque bounce complaint -- Successive presentation of cheque – Permissibility of -- As per settled law and proviso (a) of Section 138 of the 1881 Act, successive presentation of cheque is permissible within the period of its validity -- Drawee is required to be bound by successive information received about encashment or return, and demand for payment within 30 days from any fresh information can be raised -- Clause (c) makes it mandatory to file complaint in case drawer fails to make payment within 15 days of receipt of notice which means once demand notice is issued, thereafter no presentation is permitted.

(Para 8, 9)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Successive presentation of cheque – Merger of Banks -- Quashing of Complaint/ Summoning order – Challenge to – Cheque dishonoured for the reason "other reason-Bank is merged" -- Same was again presented but was again returned with remarks "other reason-bank is merged" -- Thereafter, a demand notice was issued followed by filing of complaint and the summoning order – No ground is made out for any intervention by High Court --  Petition dismissed.

(Para 4, 5, 15)