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)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 27-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS Case – Regular bail – Jump of bail – Recovery of 6 gram of smack – Though the conduct of the petitioner having misused the concession of bail twice does not merit any relief -- However, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of more than 1 year, 2 months and 18 days and no other case is pending against him as on date under the NDPS Act -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail with conditions.

(Para 1-5)

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375, 376 -- Aggravated penetrative sexual assault -- Prosecutrix aged 17 years and 5-6 months – Consensual relationship – Rape with minor – Acquittal -- A provision which does not take into consideration our societal realities and proceed on an assumption, that every sexual indulgence with a minor, irrespective of whether she was capable of being an equal participant in the act, has definitely created a situation, resulting in acquittal of the accused in cases of consensual sexual relationship, where the gap in the age of accused and that of victim is small.

(Para 27)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363 – Kidnapping -- Prosecutrix aged 17 years and 5-6 months – Accused and the prosecutrix were indulged in a love affair and in cross-examination, she specifically admitting about the same -- Girl on her own, left her house and accompanied the accused, where she travelled in distinct States and made no attempt to flee away and rather addressed letters to the concerned police stations about she willingly accompanying the accused and referring to “Nikah”, being performed with the accused -- Ld. Special Judge has rightly derived a conclusion that there is no evidence, establishing that the accused had taken away or enticed her and, therefore, an offence under Section 363 of IPC is not made out.

(Para 28)

C. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375, 376 -- Aggravated penetrative sexual assault -- Consensual relationship – Rape with minor – Acquittal – Prosecutrix continued to stay with the accused and physical relationship was established between them, considering that she was aged 17 years and 5-6 months, a conclusion was derived by Ld. Special Judge that the act of the accused amounted to an offence of rape as, she being minor, sexual relationship maintained with her, either with or without consent, would amount to rape – Evidence on record has clearly made out a case for consensual sex -- Held, ld. Special Judge has erred in convicting the appellant u/s 376 of IPC and u/s 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act – Appellant acquitted.

(Para 28-30)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 – Disobedience of order duly promulgated by public servant -- Necessary ingredients of an offence u/s 188 IPC are:-

(a) there must be an order promulgated by a public servant,

(b) such public servant must be lawfully empowered to promulgate such order,

(c) Such order should direct the accused to abstain from an act or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management,

(d) Accused disobeys the order knowingly,

(e) Such obedience must cause or tend to cause –

(i) obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed; or

(ii) danger to human life, health or safety; or

(iii) causes or tend to cause riot or affray.

(Para 6)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195 – Disobedience of order duly promulgated by public servant – Cognizance by court -- No Court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC except on a written complaint made by the concerned public servant, whose order has been disobeyed.

(Para 6-8)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 269 -- Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life – Essential ingredients for commission of offence under Section 269 IPC are:

(i) The disease in question was infectious and dangerous to human life.

(ii) The accused did an act, which was likely to felicitate spreading of the disease

(iii) The accused did the act unlawfully or negligently

(iv) The accused knew or had reason to believe that his act was likely to spread the disease.

(Para 13)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188, 269 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 173, 195 – FIR -- Police report -- Cognizance by Court -- In view of the bar placed by Section 195 CrPC, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance on the challan filed by the Police for offence u/s 188 IPC -- Not the case of the respondent/State that the petitioner was suffering from corona virus or any other disease on the date of alleged offence, which could spread the infection to others and thus, ingredients of Section 269 IPC are completely missing – FIR u/s 188 & 269 of the IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.

(Para 9-18)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 251 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Interim compensation u/s 143A of NI Act – Stage of -- Accusation to accused – It is only where the accused “pleads not guilty” of the accusation made in the complaint that interim compensation u/s 143A (1) can be granted -- Magistrate did not issue the order after the plea of the accused was entered, but before that i.e. after he answered the summons – Compensation order quashed.

(Para 6-8)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143A -- Interim compensation u/s 143A of NI Act – Stage of -- Trial has proceeded and is at an advanced stage -- It is open at this stage too for the complainant to seek appropriate relief, including u/s 143A, since it can be claimed at “any stage”.

(Para 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Abetment of suicide – Acquittal -- Deposition only pointed out that the deceased was over burdened with work; he was not satisfied with the performance of subordinate staff in discharging the official duties; he had an apprehension that the subordinate staff along with RBI official conspired against him and planted the counterfeit currency in cash chest -- Deposition of the complainant and her son had not proved abetment of suicide – Trial court acquitted the accused -- No case made out for interference.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 173, 195 -- Disobedience of order duly promulgated by public servant – Cognizance of -- FIR – Police report – Sustainability of -- Proceedings u/s 188 of the IPC can only be initiated on the basis of complaint in writing by the concerned public servant -- No FIR can be registered for the offence u/s 188 of the IPC and no report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C. to the concerned Court can be filed on the basis of evidence collected in the said FIR.

(Para 7)

B. Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (3 of 1897), Section 3 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 173, 195 -- Disobedience of order duly promulgated by public servant – Penalty -- Cognizance of -- FIR – Police report – Sustainability of -- Any offence under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 is deemed to be an offence u/s 188 of the IPC – So procedure u/s 188 of the Code is to be followed by the prosecuting agency for prosecuting a person under the Epidemic Diseases Act -- No complaint has been filed but police after registration of the FIR submitted the challan – Held, it is a clear violation of the provisions of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C.

(Para 11)

C. Disaster Management Act, 2005 (53 of 2005), Section 51, 60 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(d) -- Punishment for obstruction – Cognizance of offence – Maximum punishment for Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act is two years, so offence is non cognizable and complaint is required to be filed in the Court and Court can take cognizance only on the complaint made by the concerned authority for violation of any provision of the said Act.

(Para 13)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 -- Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (3 of 1897), Section 3 -- Disaster Management Act, 2005 (53 of 2005), Section 51, 60 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 173, 195, 482 -- Disobedience of order duly promulgated by public servant – Obstruction of officer/ employee – Quashing of FIR -- Investigation was completed and final report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. was filed before the concerned Magistrate -- Mandatory provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. not followed -- Only complaint could be filed by the officer whose orders were violated and not by the police on the basis of investigation -- Registration of FIR is abuse of the process of law -- Petition allowed, FIR and all subsequent proceedings qua petitioner quashed.

(Para 13, 14)

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Aggravated penetrative sexual assault – Punishment – Amendment of 2019 – Effect of -- On the date of the commission of the offence, R.I. for ten years was the minimum sentence prescribed -- From 16th August 2019, the minimum sentence has been enhanced to twenty years -- However, the amended provision will not apply as the incident has taken place prior to 16th August 2019.

(Para 10)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Less than minimum sentence – Power of Court -- When a penal provision uses the phraseology “shall not be less than….”, the Courts cannot do offence to the Section and impose a lesser sentence - - Courts are powerless to do that unless there is a specific statutory provision enabling the Court to impose a lesser sentence -- No such provision in the POCSO Act -- No question of showing any leniency.

(Para 12)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 299, 308 -- Appellant/ Bus Conductor -- Attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Question is whether the appellant had knowledge that he, by virtue of the act of ringing the bell, was likely to cause death -- It is not possible to say that the appellant while ringing the bell, had knowledge that his act is likely to cause the death of PW-1 – In the absence of intention and knowledge as contemplated by Section 299 of IPC, the offence of attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder was not made out.

(Para 12, 13)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 222(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 308, 338 -- By applying principles incorporated in sub-section (2) of Section 222 of the Cr.P.C, the Court can consider whether the appellant has committed any other offence which is a minor offence in comparison to the offence for which he is tried – Appellant charged u/s 308 IPC, however convicted u/s 338 IPC.

(Para 13)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 338, 308 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 222(2) – Charges u/s 308 IPC – Conviction u/s 338 IPC -- It was the duty of the appellant as a conductor to take care of the passengers -- Hence, before he rang the bell and gave a signal to the driver to start the bus, he ought to have verified whether all passengers had safely boarded the bus -- Appellant did not verify whether the passengers had properly boarded the bus -- This was an act of recklessness on his part -- Grievous hurt was caused to PW-1 as she suffered fracture of pelvis – Appellant is guilty of the commission of an offence punishable u/s 338 of IPC -- Omission to frame charge u/s 338 of IPC will not be fatal -- Appellant has undergone the sentence for only 36 days -- Considering the fact that the incident is of the year 2005 and other factual aspects, a sentence of simple imprisonment for six months will be an appropriate punishment -- High Court had imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000/- which amount has been deposited -- In addition to the sum of Rs.50,000/- already deposited -- Appellant to deposit an additional amount of Rs.25,000/-.

(Para 14,15)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3), 482 – Fraud and forgery -- Originally the complaint was sent to the police station u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and FIR was registered -- After investigation, the said FIR was cancelled -- Petitioner filed complaint and led preliminary evidence -- Complaint was dismissed – Revision also dismissed -- Power of attorney was executed but later on same was got cancelled -- It cannot be prima-facie gathered that respondents had any intention to cheat the complainant at the time of receiving the money for selling the property – No illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Court and there is no ground to interfere in the same -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 8-11)

A. Oaths Act, 1969 (44 of 1969), Section 4(1) – Child witness -- In case of a child witness under 12 years of age, unless satisfaction as required by the said proviso is recorded, an oath cannot be administered to the child witness.

(Para 7)

B. Oaths Act, 1969 (44 of 1969), Section 4(1) – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 118 – Child witness -- In the deposition of PW-1, it is mentioned that his age was 12 years at the time of the recording of evidence -- Proviso to Section 4 of the Oaths Act will not apply -- However, in view of the requirement of Section 118 of the Evidence Act, the learned Trial Judge was under a duty to record his opinion that the child is able to understand the questions put to him and that he is able to give rational answers to the questions put to him -- The Trial Judge must also record his opinion that the child witness understands the duty of speaking the truth and state why he is of the opinion that the child understands the duty of speaking the truth.

(Para 7)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 118 – Child witness -- Corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence -- A child witness of tender age is easily susceptible to tutoring -- However, that by itself is no ground to reject the evidence of a child witness -- Court must make careful scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness -- Scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness is required to be made by the Court with care and caution -- It is advisable to record the preliminary questions and answers so that the Appellate Court can go into the correctness of the opinion of the Trial Court.

(Para 8, 9)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 324, 449, 34 – Murder – Acquittal -- Investigation Officer did not make investigation by recording the statements of the elder brothers of PW-1/ Minor for verifying whether they were away from the house on the date of the incident -- Shoes of the appellant did not match the moulds of the imprint of the shoe taken by the prosecution -- Possibility of the PW-1/ minor witness, being tutored cannot be ruled out -- There is no support or corroboration to the testimony of PW-1, apart from other deficiencies in the prosecution case -- It will not be safe to base the conviction only on the testimony of PW-1/ Minor which does not inspire confidence – Appeal allowed, impugned judgments aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offences.

(Para 10,11)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Circumstantial evidence -- Strong suspicion -- It cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt.

(Para 8)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 24 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder -- Extra-judicial confession -- No reason as to why the accused persons would go 100 kms. away and confess to PW-2 -- Conduct also appears to be unnatural, though IO (PW-11) was known to PW-2 and the telephone which was installed in his house was in a working condition, he did not find it necessary to inform him through telephone -- Courts below have erred in relying on the extra-judicial confession.

(Para 13)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder – Acquittal -- Circumstantial evidence -- According to PW-11, the gun which was recovered from the car had two empty cartridges (Ex. P10 and P11) -- Evidence of Doctor (PW-5), who had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, would show that there was no external exit wound, and wad and pellets were preserved and sealed – No evidence collected as to whether the said gun belonged to the appellant MK, even the Ballistic Expert has not been examined to show that the wad and pellets were fired from the empty cartridges (Ex. P10 and P11)

-- In view of the serious doubt with regard to the credibility of the witnesses on the issue of extra-judicial confession and last seen theory, the failure to examine Ballistic Expert would be a glaring defect in the prosecution case.

Held, prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and, as such, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt -- Judgment of the Trial Court quashed and set aside, appellants shall stand discharged.

(Para 22-27)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Legal/ Demand notice – Non-issuance of – Acquittal -- Authorised representative of Bank in his cross-examination specifically stated that he had not issued the notice -- Not only this, he had not produced the original record -- Applicability of Section 138 of the Act would be on the failure of the drawer of the cheque to pay the amount within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice -- Testimony of authorised representative of bank had not substantiated the complaint, he neither had personal knowledge of the facts nor produced the original file -- Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 8-13)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375, 376 – Rape – Ingredients -- Consent of the opposite sex -- If there is an element of consent available or is apparently made out from allegations, it cannot be termed to be a rape -- It is only when the ingredient of Section 375 of the IPC is satisfied in the FIR registered by the complainant, that a person could be punished for the penal provisions provided under Section 376 of the IPC, and not otherwise.

(Para 4, 5)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375, 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape – Quashing of criminal case -- Consensual sex on pretext of marriage -- For over the last 1-1/2 decades, prosecutrix was in an intimate relationship with the applicant -- Physical relationship was established at the residence of both the parties and even after, when the applicant had even got married with some other lady -- When the complainant had voluntarily established a relationship even after knowing the fact, that the applicant is already a married person, the element of consent itself imbibes in it -- Falsity of an assurance of marriage is to be tested at its initial stage of inception, and not at a subsequent stage -- Initial stage, cannot be said to have been prolonged for 15 years, and even continued after the marriage of the applicant – Criminal case quashed.

(Para 6-14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120-B -- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), Section 7 -- Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Section 29 – Quashing of FIR -- No allegation of any cheating -- In CRM-M-7268-2008, Pardeep Kumar Garg and other’ case, decided on 23.05.2012, FIR was quashed as complaint is maintainable and registration of FIR is misuse of process of law -- FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners quashed – Order will not stand in the way of any proceedings being taken after following the due process of law.

(Para 5, 13-15)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 341, 379-B -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(2)(va) – Snatching – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Offence for which the accused have been charged are not of serious nature -- Compromise will go a long way in ironing out the differences for betterment of future life of the parties -- Petition for quashing the FIR allowed qua the petitioners.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 180 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 162 – Refusal to sign statement -- No statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of any investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr. PC, which is reduced to writing, is required to be signed by the person making the statement and that section 180 of the IPC gets attracted only if a statement is refused to be signed which a public servant is legally competent to require the person making the statement to sign.

(Para 22)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211, 397, 482 – Quashing of charge -- Small window that the law, through judicial precedents, provides is to look at the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected in course of investigation, without a rebuttal thereof by the accused, and to form an opinion upon consideration thereof that an offence is indeed not disclosed from it -- Unless the prosecution is shown to be illegitimate so as to result in an abuse of the process of law, it would not be proper to scuttle it.

(Para 17)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211, 397, 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 406, 506, 379, 120B, 180 -- Quashing of charge -- It is trite that the conspiracy to commit an offence is by itself distinct from the offence to do which the conspiracy is entered into and that such an offence, if actually committed, would be the subject-matter of a separate charge -- Allegations that the petitioner was found counting the cash received by the principal accused -- Involvement of the petitioner, howsoever limited, cannot be ruled out at this stage and, therefore, the trial ought to be permitted to proceed.

(Para 18)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(c), 25, 29 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Regular bail on parity – More FIRs pending – Effect of -- State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that petitioner is involved in number of FIRs -- However, State is not in a position to distinguish the case of the petitioner qua the co-accused so far as grant of bail is concerned – Without commenting on the merits of the case, on the basis of parity of petitioner vis-a-vis co-accused, the petitioner granted bail.

(Para 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Cheating – Anticipatory bail -- Condition for grant of bail on undertaking for deposit of Rs.22,00,000/- in the form of FDR in the Trial Court – Held, such an approach would not be warranted in cases of private disputes where private parties complain of their money being involved in the offence of cheating -- If at all the offence alleged against the appellant is proved resulting in his conviction, he would be bound to suffer penal consequence(s) but despite such conviction he may not be under any obligation to repay the amount allegedly received from the complainants -- This too is an aspect which the High Court exercising jurisdiction u/s 438 of the Cr. PC did not bear in mind – Held, High Court fell in grave error in proceeding on the basis of the undertaking of the appellant and imposing payment of Rs.22,00,000/- as a condition precedent for grant of bail -- Matter remitted back to High court for re-consideration of the application for pre-arrest bail.

(Para 17-30)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Termination of services – Punishment u/s 354/ 448 of Ranbir Penal Code -- Contention that during service, the petitioner was adorned with 30 rewards including 4 Commendation Cards and punishment of termination of services is harsh and is disproportionate to the alleged offence – Petition disposed of, punishment set aside, matter remanded back to the competent authority to pass afresh order qua quantum of punishment.

(Para 2-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304, Part II, 148, 149 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Sentence -- All the accused were found concurrently guilty u/s 148 IPC; they were armed with different kinds of implements and weapons, that were capable of inflicting deadly injuries -- Postmortem report revealed at least six serious head injuries, including fracture and haemorrhage in different places – No reason to upset the sentence under Section 149 read with Section 304 II IPC, sentenced to 5 years R.I.

(Para 14-16)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 83 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Service of summons – Proclaimed person -- It is not borne out as to how the petitioners were duly served before initiating proceedings u/s 83 Cr.P.C. -- Such a recourse is not sustainable in law i.e. without recording satisfaction by learned Magistrate as contained u/s 82(3) Cr.P.C. to the effect that Court found that proclamation was duly published -- 30 days’ time, as mandated by Section 82 Cr.P.C. was not granted -- Impugned orders cannot be sustained -- Petition allowed, impugned orders quashed qua petitioner.

(Para 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 338 -- Electrocution of victim – Summoning of U.P.C.L. through its Managing Director as additional accused – Ex. P.11 and P.13 were there on record by which an attempt was made by the U.P.C.L. to make house owner liable for any untoward incident in future, but by doing this it cannot absolve it from its legal responsibility to maintain the lines – It is on record that the accused/ house owner in the year 2016, wrote a letter to the U.P.C.L. that due to landslide a line was bent, which was admitted by P.W.10, in his cross-examination, although, he stated that the damaged line was repaired by the U.P.C.L – Held, it cannot be said that the negligence was not there on the part of U.P.C.L., which is the main functionary to manage the network of the electric lines -- By the impugned order, the U.P.C.L. has only been directed to face the trial as an accused and yet the U.P.C.L. has every opportunity to defend itself from the prosecution – No infirmity in the impugned judgment and orders.

(Para 1, 5-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 182 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195(1)(a) – False complaint to Superintendent of Police – Kalandra u/s 182 IPC by SHO – Held, kalandra for the offence u/s 182 IPC could be instituted only by the Superintendent of Police or his superior to whom the alleged false complaint was made and not by the SHO – Therefore, no cognizance of the alleged offence can be taken -- Petition allowed, impugned Kalandra quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

(Para 6-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375, 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape – Quashing of Final report/ Police report -- Consensual relationship – Prosecutrix was a married woman having her husband and children and was fully aware that the petitioner was also a married man -- She maintained sexual relationship with the accused on many occasions and stayed with the petitioner/ accused in a room in a hotel -- It is difficult to conclude that the prosecutrix had not given consent for the sexual relationship -- Impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed, exercising the inherent power conferred on the Court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. – Petition allowed.

(Para 22-24)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Rape – Acquittal -- Delay of 28 days in giving the complaint – To commit the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC no sane person would take two accomplices, that too after committing a similar offence earlier -- Complainant was not present on both the occasions -- There is no attempt to recover the knife from the appellant as it is a specific case of the prosecution that he committed the offence by threatening to harm the prosecutrix -- No reason as to why the sole eye-witness has not been examined – Appellant acquitted.

(Para 8-13)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 134 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Rape – Statement of prosecutrix -- Evidence of the prosecutrix will have to be kept at a higher pedestal but then, such a testimony will have to satisfy the conscience of the Court -- It has to be seen contextually in the light of the other evidence available.

(Para 10)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Illegal custody – Compensation – Writ jurisdiction – Public Law remedy -- Petitioner was illegally kept in judicial custody between 14.02.2014 to 27.07.2014 for a crime, which has not been committed by him – Subsequently the police submitted the final form stating the mistake of fact, the petitioner was discharged by the learned court – Case of the petitioner is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India under the Public Law Remedy -- Respondent-State directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the petitioner within six weeks as a compensation for illegally detaining the petitioner into the custody for the aforesaid period.

(Para 14-20)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 – Murder – Acquittal -- Ante-timed FIR -- Original FIR clearly shows that there is some interpolation in the time of its lodging mentioned therein -- It is evident from naked eye that ‘1’ has been converted into ‘9’ and ‘5’ has been rounded off to make ‘0’ whereas ‘PM’ has been converted into ‘AM’ -- In other words, 1:50 PM has been changed to 9:00 AM -- Trial Court completely lost sight of the fact that not only the time has been changed but the word ‘PM’ has also been interpolated and converted into ‘AM’ – Thus FIR has been ante-timed from 1:50 PM to 9:00 AM -- This entitles the accused to be given the benefit of doubt.

(Para 12, 13)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 – Murder -- Delay in sending FIR report to court – FIR report was sent to the Court with the delay of about 4 days -- FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and a valuable piece of evidence especially for the purpose of appreciating the evidence adduced at the trial -- FIR casts a doubt on its authenticity.

(Para 13)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 – Murder – Acquittal -- Appellant no. 2 died -- Unnatural behaviour and conduct of the eyewitnesses/ son and nephew of the deceased, ante-timing of the FIR and that the ‘loi’ (blanket) and the cycle alleged to be that of the accused/appellants left behind at the site of the incident were not produced before the Court, compels the Court to doubt the presence of the son and nephew of the deceased at the site -- Delay in conducting the post-mortem – There is difference in the name of the weapons of crime – Accused/ appellant No.1 acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt.

(Para 10, 23-25)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(2)(N), 506, 294, 323 --  Constitution of India, Article 226 – Rape – Quashing of FIR – Delay in lodging of FIR – Long standing relationship between prosecutrix and petitioner – There is no allegation that there was false promise to marry – There is also FIR against other men by prosecutrix which shows that FIR has been lodged malafidely due to break in their relationship or for some other ulterior motives – FIR quashed, writ petition allowed.

(Para 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 409, 420, 506, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 173, 197, 482 – Misappropriation of public funds -- Prosecution of public servant -- Sanction is required only to launch the prosecution and not for investigation of the cases.

(Para 10)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 8, 12 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- POCSO matter – Regular bail -- Mail child victim is 10 year old – Petitioner in custody since 30.04.2023 -- Pre-trial incarceration is not the rule -- No fruitful purpose shall be served by allowing the petitioner to be kept in custody till the conclusion of trial -- Apprehension expressed on behalf of the respondent regarding likelihood of influence being exerted on prosecution witnesses, can be duly taken care of by putting the petitioner to appropriate terms -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 1-9)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 25, 29, 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS case – Regular bail – Commercial quantity – Rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act – Speedy trial -- Petitioner in custody since 1.6.2021 -- Trial is not likely to conclude within short time -- Indisputably, accused has constitutional right for speedy trial -- Weighed against such constitutional right, it cannot be said that the rigors of Section 37 of the Act can have efficacy in perpetuate and more particularly in case where trial is not concluded within a reasonable period -- Nothing on record to suggest that the delay in trial has been caused for any reason attributable to the petitioner – Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be release on bail.

(Para 6-9, 17)