Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Quashing of Complaint -- Company not impleaded as party – Demand notice to wrong company – Cheque was issued in the capacity of an authorized signatory of BSR Health Ventures Private Limited and was not issued from a personal account -- However, the notice was issued and the complaint was filed against the Director of BSR Super Specialty Hospitals Ltd. – Held, since a wrong notice has been served and a wrong party has been made and further, the Company has also not been arrayed as an accused, the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of law -- Criminal proceedings against the petitioner quashed.

(Para 9, 10)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Cheque by company -- Vicarious liability of officer – Officer,  Non-signatory to cheque -- Pleadings as to role of Officer -- Specific averments must be made in the complaint itself highlighting the role of the said officer as to how he was either responsible for day-to-day affairs and conduct of business of the company or as to how and in what manner the officer was guilty of consent and connivance or negligence in the commission of the offence.

(Para 13)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Cheque by company -- Vicarious liability of Chief Account officer – Officer,  Non-signatory to cheque -- Pleadings as to role of Officer -- Specific averments that, the petitioner persuaded the complainant to enter into the transaction with the Company by showing the financial position of the Company as well as making them believe in the capacity of the same to repay the debts -- Complainant has fulfilled the basic criteria of carving out the role of present petitioner in the complaint, for the commission of offence u/s 138 and 141 of NI Act.

(Para 13, 14)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Cheque by company -- Vicarious liability of Chief Account officer – Company master data – Non-showing of resignation – Effect of -- In Company Master Data, the petitioner was a part of the Company on the date the alleged offence took place and when the complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court – Contentions of the petitioner that he had already resigned from the Company prior to dishonor of cheque – High Court in a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. cannot decide the genuineness of such records -- No case for quashing of complaint -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 15-17)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Cheque by company -- Vicarious liability of Chief Account officer – Officer,  non-signatory to cheque -- Pleadings as to role of Officer – Specific averment that petitioner/ accused persuaded the complainant to enter into the transaction with the Company by showing the financial position of the Company as well as making them believe in the capacity of the same to repay the debts – Held, complainant has fulfilled the basic criteria of carving out the role of present petitioner in the complaint, for the commission of offence u/ss 138 and 141 of NI Act, 1881.

(Para 13, 14)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque by company -- Vicarious liability of Chief Account Officer – Resignation by Officer – Contention that petitioner had already resigned from the Company prior to dishonor of cheque and that his resignation was not accepted because of which his name continued to appear on the ROC records – Held, High Court in a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. cannot decide the genuineness of such records and these contentions of the petitioner can be raised and appropriately dealt with during the course of trial -- No case for quashing of complaint -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 14-17)

Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Section 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33, 24 (4) – Insecticides Rules, 1971, Rule 27(5) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of Complaint/ summoning order -- Re-testing at the Central Insecticide Laboratory within a period of 30 days -- Mandatory in nature -- Different accused requested for sending the second part of the sample for re-analysis by the Central Insecticide Laboratory on 25.07.2016 and 01.08.2016 -- Sample was received in the said Laboratory on 25.11.2016 after a gap of more than two months, with no justification of this delay -- Receipt of the sample by Central Insecticide Laboratory was confirmed on 07.03.2017 and then actual analysis was done on 22.03.2017 i.e. after a gap of 273 days -- Unjustified huge delay of 273 days in re-analyzing of the sample, certainly caused prejudice to the petitioner – Use of word 'shall' in Section 24(4) makes it mandatory to conduct the test or analysis by the Central Insecticide Laboratory within 30 days -- Held prosecution launched by the respondent cannot be sustained -- Complaint and the impugned summoning order and all the consequential proceedings quashed.

(Para 8-13)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Chhattisgarh Moneylenders Act, 1934 (13 of 1934), Section 11-H -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 251, 254, 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Challenge to order framing charge -- Contention that demand notice was never served on the petitioner; there is no legally enforceable debt; and the petitioner is under the category of money lender, therefore, the suit is barred under Section 11-H of the Chhattisgarh Money Lenders Act, 1934 – Held, defence taken by the petitioner/ accused may be seen during the trial -- Section 11-H of the Act, does not attract in the case -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 2-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Murder – Judicial discipline and propriety -- Conviction upheld by Supreme Court, matter remanded back to High Court to consider the question of sentence, after hearing the learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the accused – In paragraph 42 of the impugned judgment and order certain unwarranted observations made by High Court -- Judicial discipline requires that once the conviction was confirmed by Supreme Court that too after hearing the accused, the High Court should not have thereafter made any comment on the merits of the case – High Court commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment after considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances – Paragraph 42 of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court set aside and expunged -- Commuting the death penalty to life imprisonment not interfered with.

(Para 3-5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Dismissed for want of prosecution – Petitioner/ complainant was continuously appearing before the Court, but on 08.08.2022, neither he nor his lawyer were present – Dismissal for want of prosecution should not have been done, instead another opportunity could have been granted to the petitioner for his appearance and the case should have been decided on merits -- Impugned order set-aside, Trial Court directed to proceed with the case after appearance of the complainant and the case shall be decided on merits in accordance with law.

(Para 1-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Regular bail – Condition to deposit of Rs.9,00,000/- in the Court was imposed on the statement of the petitioner – He could not comply with the condition and resultantly continues in custody since 30.06.2016 -- Subsequently he applied for modification/recall of the condition turned down by the High Court – Held, pre-condition of deposit of Rs.9,00,000/- for his release on regular bail, is totally unwarranted and uncalled for and set aside -- Petitioner directed to be released on bail forthwith subject to his furnishing bail bonds.

(Para 1-6)

Trade Marks Act, 1999 (47 of 1999), Section 103, 104, 115(4) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Trade Mark offence -- Quashing of FIR –Search and seizure by Sub Inspector – Permission from Registrar -- Provisions of Section 115(4) of the Act clearly violated on two counts: firstly, the entire search and seizure was undertaken by an officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police and secondly, the proceedings were initiated without the opinion of the Registrar, Trade Marks -- Thus, there is a clear statutory embargo to the initiation and continuance of proceedings -- Petition allowed – FIR, order framing charge and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 13-15)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 204 – Cheque bounce complaint – Cognizance by Magistrate -- Issue of process – Recalling of -- After completion of Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure there is no provision for reverting back and question the taking of cognizance and dismissing the same.

(Para 1, 8, 9, 17)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 142 – Cheque bounce complaint – Delay in complaint – Condonation of delay -- Ample power has been given by the legislature by inserting the provisions of Section 142 of the N.I. Act to protect the person who has given money from technicalities -- Proper explanation was given in the petition of complaint supported by medical papers which was overlooked by the Ld. Magistrate – Order passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate set aside/quashed -- Criminal Proceedings in complaint restored -- Petitioner is permitted to file an application for condonation of delay before the trial court and if such an application is filed, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to consider the same on its own merits.

(Para 13-29)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(v), (va) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Quashing of complaint/ summoning order under SC ST Act -- Private civil dispute between the parties is converted into criminal proceedings -- From the material on record, no case for the offences u/s 3(1)(v) and (va) of the 1989 Act is made out, even prima facie -- None of the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of Act, 1989 are made out and/ or satisfied -- Initiation of the criminal proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law and Court -- High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure -- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition quashed and set aside -- Criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants, initiated by the respondent/ original complainant including summons issued by the learned Special Court quashed and set aside.

(Para 3-4)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 439 -- Intent of arrest -- Reason of denial of bail are:

– to secure the appearance of the accused at the time of trial;

– to  allay possibility of repeating of offence & jeopardising own life on account of grim prospect of being convicted;

-- to avoid possibility of tampering of evidence and security of witnesses who may be pressurised or maltreated.

(Para 5)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 (2) (N), 343, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Constitution of India, Article 19(1), 21 -- POCSO case – Rape – Regular bail – Detention or arrest not only deprives a person from his fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 but also freedom guaranteed by article 19(1) of our Constitution – Keeping in mind, the Petitioner is in custody since 27.02.2021, police report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C. stands filed and charges stand framed, prosecution stands examined as well cross-examined, out of total 24 witnesses till date 06 have been examined, thus, there is abysmally law possibility of conclusion of trial in near future, the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case, petitioner is permanent resident of District Sirsa and have family members and prosecution has not led any convincing/plausible documentary or oral evidence indicating possibility of petitioner being flee from justice or tempering the evidences or winning over/threatening the witnesses, petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 489, 489A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Counterfeit currency -- Second petition for regular bail -- Acting upon a secret information, police recovered counterfeit currency worth Rs. 4,75,000/- from the petitioners – Petitioners in custody since February, 2021 -- Considering the facts that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents, no further recovery is to be made from the petitioners, though investigation is complete conclusion of trial is likely to take time, the petitioners granted bail.

(Para 1-6)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 396, 332, 333, 412, 353, 504, 506, 34, 120-B -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 18 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Unlawful assembly – Murder – Dacoity – Regular bail – Petitioner was a minor, being tried as an adult, she had been married shortly prior to the incident – High Court denied bail, based on the circumstance that as many as eight police officers who had gone to arrest one person were killed in the act of firing by the co-accused -- Charge-sheet submitted, trial has commenced – Held, continued custody of the petitioner at this stage would not sub-serve the ends of justice – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions.

(Para 1-7)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120-B -- Murder -- Life imprisonment – Suspension of sentence -- Appeal against the conviction is pending before the High Court since 2018 -- High Court, however, declined to grant suspension of sentence pending the disposal of the appeal – Petitioner has undergone over twelve years and six months of actual imprisonment – Since the appeal before the High Court is likely to take time for disposal, Supreme Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail, pending the disposal of the appeal.

(Para 1-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 341, 325, 307 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular  bail -- Excessive condition of bail – Sustainability of -- Appellant granted bail by the High Court and imposed the excessive conditions of a deposit of fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with a surety of another Rs.1,00,000/- and two further bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- each – Excessive conditions imposed have, in-fact, in practical manifestation, acted as a refusal to the grant of bail -- To keep the Appellant in jail, that too in a case where he normally would have been granted bail for the alleged offences, is not just a symptom of injustice, but injustice itself -- Appellant is in no financial condition to satisfy the conditions -- Appeal allowed, conditions set for the grant of Bail stands waived off.

(Para 13-19)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 405, 406 – Criminal breach of trust -- For Section 406 of the IPC to get attracted, there must be criminal breach of trust in terms of Section 405 of the IPC -- For Section 405 of the IPC to be attracted, the following have to be established:

(a) the accused was entrusted with property, or entrusted with dominion over property;

(b) the accused had dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use that property, or dishonestly used or disposed of that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so; and

(c) such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal should be in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract which the person has made, touching the discharge of such trust.

Thus, criminal breach of trust would, inter alia, mean using or disposing of the property by a person who is entrusted with or otherwise has dominion -- Such an act must not only be done dishonestly, but also in violation of any direction of law or any contract express or implied relating to carrying out the trust.

(Para 12-14)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 405, 406 – Criminal breach of trust -- Complaint does not directly refer to the ingredients of Section 405 of the IPC and does not state how and in what manner, on facts, the requirements are satisfied -- Pre-summoning evidence is also lacking and suffers on this account -- If monetary demand or claim is incorrect and not payable, offence u/s 405/ 406 is not constituted.

(Para 15)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 415, 420 -- Cheating -- In order to apply Section 420 of the IPC,  the ingredients of Section 415 of the IPC have to be satisfied -- To constitute an offence of cheating u/s 415 of the IPC, a person should be induced, either fraudulently or dishonestly, to deliver any property to any person, or consent that any person shall retain any property -- Second class of acts set forth in the section is the intentional inducement of doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do, if she were not so deceived -- Thus, the sine qua non of Section 415 of the IPC is “fraudulence”, “dishonesty”, or “intentional inducement”, and the absence of these elements would debase the offence of cheating.

(Para 16)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Cheating -- There is no assertion, much less legal evidence, to submit that accused/company had engaged in dishonesty, fraud, or intentional inducement to deliver a property -- It is not the case of respondent no. 2 - complainant that accused-company had tried to deceive them, either by making a false or misleading representation, or by any other action or omission; nor is it their case that accused-company had offered any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver a property -- As such, ingredients of Section 415 of the IPC are not satisfied, the offence u/s 420 of the IPC is not made out.

(Para 17)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 464,  470,  471 -- Forged document -- To constitute the offence u/s 471 of the IPC, it has to be proven that the document was “forged” in terms of Section 470, and “false” in terms of Section 464 of the IPC -- Section 470 lays down that a document is ‘forged’ if there is: (i) fraudulent or dishonest use of a document as genuine; and (ii) knowledge or reasonable belief on the part of the person using the document that it is a forged one -- Section 470 defines a forged document as a false document made by forgery -- As per Section 464 of the IPC, a person is said to have made a ‘false document’: (i) if he has made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; (ii) if he has altered or tampered a document; or (iii) if he has obtained a document by practising deception, or from a person not in control of his senses -- Unless, the document is false and forged in terms of Sections 464 and 470 of the IPC respectively, the requirement of Section 471 of the IPC would not be met.

(Para 18)

F. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 204 -- Summoning of accused – Duty of Magistrate -- Even though at the stage of issuing process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons, there should be adequate evidence on record to set the criminal proceedings into motion -- Requirement of Section 204 of the Code is that the Magistrate should carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record -- He/she may even put questions to complainant and his/her witnesses when examined u/s 200 of the Code to elicit answers to find out the truth about the allegations -- Only upon being satisfied that there is sufficient ground for summoning the accused to stand the trial, summons should be issued.

(Para 21)

G. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 202, 204 – Summoning of accused -- Summoning order is to be passed when the complainant discloses the offence, and when there is material that supports and constitutes essential ingredients of the offence -- It should not be passed lightly or as a matter of course -- Summoning without appreciation of the legal provisions and their application to the facts may result in an innocent being summoned to stand the prosecution/trial -- While summoning an accused who resides outside the jurisdiction of court, in terms of the insertion made to Section 202 of the Code by Act No. 25 of 2005, it is obligatory upon the Magistrate to inquire into the case himself or direct investigation be made by a police officer or such other officer for finding out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(Para 21, 22)

H. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 204, 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 405, 420, 471, 120-B – Cheating -- Criminal breach of trust – Forgery -- Summoning of accused – Quashing of complaint/ summoning order/ non-bailable warrants -- Non-bailable warrant was not issued in the name of any person but by designation against the Chief Manager JIPL – High Court, while dismissing the petition filed u/s 482 of the Code, failed to take due notice that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be initiated when it is manifest that these proceedings have been initiated with ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite the opposite side due to private or personal grudge -- Allegations in the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence on record, when taken on the face value and accepted in entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged -- Inherent powers of the court can and should be exercised in such circumstances -- When the allegations in the complaint are so absurd or inherently improbable, on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient wrong for proceeding against the accused, summons should not be issued – Proceedings and complaint quashed.

(Para 10, 23-25)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 29, 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Son’s criminal liability – Appeal -- Accused is none other than the son of the deceased-father who borrowed the loan from the complainant and the accused agreed to repay the same and he has issued the cheque -- Such being the case, as a legal representative of the father, the accused is liable to repay the loan to the complainant – First Appellate Court not considered Section 29 of the N.I. Act and has erred in acquitting the accused -- Judgment of the First Appellate Court set aside -- Judgment of the trial Court convicting the respondent-accused upheld.

(Para 8-12)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 29, 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Son’s criminal liability – Time barred debt – Deceased father of accused borrowed loan in the year 2003, the cheque was issued by son after four years -- Accused once paid Rs.10,000/- by cash and subsequently, he issued a cheque to discharge the liability, he is liable for discharging his liability of his father -- Judgment of the trial Court convicting the respondent-accused upheld.

(Para 8-12)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143-A – Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation – Discretion of Court -- Court trying a complaint for offence u/s 138 of NI Act has discretion to order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant -- Amount of compensation has not to exceed 20% of the amount of the cheque – Held, grant of interim compensation is a discretionary power and such order has to be based on reason and logic.

(Para 9)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143-A – Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation – Discretion of Court -- No guidelines for grant of interim compensation have been laid down in Section 143-A of the NI Act -- it is a settled law that whenever a discretionary power is to be exercised by a Court, the same has to be exercised on well-recognized principles supported by reasons -- Court has to spell out the reasons for grant of interim compensation in favour of the complainant and it has also to justify in its order with reasons the quantum of interim compensation that is being awarded by him as the said quantum can vary from 1% to 20% of the cheque amount.

-- Some of the reasons for granting interim compensation may be that the accused absconds and avoids to appear before the Court despite service or there is overwhelming material on record to show that the accused is liable to pay an enforceable debt or that the accused is guilty of protracting the proceedings by avoiding to cross-examine the witnesses or producing his evidence.

(Para 10, 11)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 251 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Interim compensation – Discretion of court -- Reasoned order – Requirement of -- Magistrate is empowered to grant interim compensation in favour of a complainant ranging from 1% to 20% of the cheque amount -- Trial Magistrate has granted interim compensation in the maximum range of 20% without assigning any reason – Order impugned is devoid of any reasons and no discussion is made in the impugned order as to why interim compensation is being awarded – Ld. Magistrate has not dealt with the aspect of the matter relating to denial of execution of the cheque by the accused in his statement recorded u/s 251 of the Cr. P. C – Order is not sustainable in law, quashed.

(Para 14, 15)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 195(1) -- FIR u/s 188 IPC – Quashing of FIR – No complaint in writing by Public Servant as required u/s 195(1) Cr.P.C -- Registration of FIR and commencement of proceedings qua petitioner is impermissible -- FIR quashed.

(Para 9, 11)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 468, 469 -- FIR u/s 188 IPC – Quashing of FIR – Limitation -- Period of limitation would be one year from the date of commission of offence with respect to Section 188 IPC -- SDJM, had taken the cognizance, beyond the period of limitation as detailed in Sections 468 and 469 Cr.P.C. -- Petition allowed, FIR u/s 188 IPC, and subsequent proceedings emanating from it quashed.

(Para 10, 11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379, 413, 473 -- Punjab Habitual Offenders (Control and Reform) Act (XII of 1952), Section 2(3) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 228 – Framing of charge u/s 413 IPC – Challenge to -- Habitually dealing in stolen property – Petitioners have not been convicted in any case -- Apart from the present case two FIR u/s 379 IPC have been registered against petitioners and the same are pending trial – Nothing on record to prove that the petitioners have been convicted in connection with their dealing in stolen property – Held, no prima facie case u/s 413 IPC is made out against the petitioners -- Resultantly, the impugned order set aside to the aforesaid extent only.

(Para 7-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 489A, 489C, 489-D, 201 – Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 (2 of 2017), Section 7 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Demonetized counterfeit currency -- Regular bail -- Recovery worth Rs.8,42,60,000/-, it is a debatable issue as to whether possession of coloured photocopies of demonetized currency notes attracts the provisions of Section 489-A, 489-C and 489-D IPC – Petitioner in custody since 11.04.2022, police has presented the challan and charges are yet to be framed -- It will take considerable time for the trial to conclude even after the framing of charges -- Petitioner is having no criminal history -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 1-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 201, 467, 468, 471 -- Cheating and forgery – Recovery of amount – Regular bail -- In an offence u/s 420, 201, 467, 468, 471 IPC, the Court is certainly not going to recover the alleged amount as a condition to grant bail -- Reasonable conditions can be incorporated in exercise of judicial discretion and purpose of putting such conditions is to secure the presence of accused at the time of trial/hearing of the case before the trial Court -- Petitioner is in custody since 29.06.2022, report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. has been submitted, the offences are triable by Magistrate and further detention of the petitioner behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose -- Petition allowed and the petitioner directed to be released on regular bail – Conditions imposed.

(Para 11)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 15(1) -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 6(3) – Conviction for murder of wife – Husband’s right on dowry articles -- Wife died within 7 years of her marriage -- Record reveals that she died unnatural death other than in normal circumstances -- Thus, the case of the appellant squarely falls within Clause 3 of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, so as to maintain the custody of dowry articles with the complainant -- Provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, cannot be overlooked by invoking the provisions of Hindu Law relating to Succession -- Trial Court rightly held that husband was not entitled to retain dowry even if he was acquitted and dowry articles will remain with father of deceased.

(Para 14-16)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 427 -- Constitution of India, Article 32, 136, 226 -- Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 136 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 411 -- Theft of electricity – Conviction in nine cases – Concurrent running of sentence – Appellant is in jail for three years – Writ dismissed, meaningly the appellant has to go undergo a total term of imprisonment of 18 years – All the conviction took place on the same day – Held, High Court ought to have intervened in the exercise of its jurisdiction by setting right the miscarriage of justice -- Appeal allowed, sentences in the nine sessions trials ordered to run concurrently.

(Para 5-14)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) – Leave to appeal -- Granting of special leave to appeal against acquittal is a discretionary power.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 452, 506, 166, 167 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 12 -- Rape -- Cancellation report in FIR –  Ld. JMIC dismissed the complaint -- Leave to appeal -- Applicant/ prosecutrix was alleged to be raped on 07.01.2016 and 10.02.2016 – She opted to remain silent after alleged incident of 07.01.2016 and approached police on 10.02.2016 i.e. after second incident -- There is gap of one month between first incident and second incident -- Applicant attempted to implicate police officials who did not agree with her complaint -- MLR was not supporting the case of the applicant -- No injury was found over the body of the applicant -- Complainant/applicant failed to make out prima facie case warranting summoning of alleged accused – There is no infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order whereby trial Court has dismissed the complaint -- Permission for special leave to appeal rejected.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3), 482 – Cheating and forgery -- Forged sale deed – Quashing of Complaint – Mockery of investigation – Civil dispute pending -- When it is the specific case of the original complainant that at no point of time he had executed the disputed sale deed and his signature on the disputed sale deed has been forged, then the;  

-- first thing the police should have done was to obtain the specimen hand writings of the complainant so as to be compared with the disputed signature on the sale deed through a hand writing expert.

-- second thing which the investigating agency ought to have done is to investigate whether the sale consideration had been paid to the purchaser of the disputed plot or not and if the sale deed consideration had been paid, then in what manner.

-- If it is the case of the original complainant that a conspiracy was hatched, then in such circumstances why did the police drop the purchaser and the other individuals from the charge sheet stating that they are the bona fide purchasers of the plot in question for value without notice.

No convincing legal evidence on record to put the appellant to trial for the alleged offences -- Since the purchaser of the plot in question and others have not been arrayed as accused, the entire theory of criminal conspiracy collapses like a pack of cards -- Civil Court seized of the question as regards the legality and validity of the disputed sale deed -- The matter is sub judice in the Civil Court -- It will not be proper to permit the criminal prosecution to proceed further on the allegation of the sale deed being forged – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 12-18)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of Complaint – Civil dispute – Criminal texture – Inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- While exercising its jurisdiction u/s 482 of the CrPC, the High Court has to be conscious that this power is to be exercised sparingly and only for the purpose of prevention of abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice -- Whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not, has to be judged by the High Court -- A complaint disclosing civil transaction may also have a criminal texture -- But the High Court must see whether the dispute which is in substance of a civil nature is given a cloak of a criminal offence -- In such a situation, if civil remedy is available and is in fact adopted, the High Court should have quashed the criminal proceeding to prevent abuse of process of court.

(Para 17)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 401 – Belonging to gang of thieves -- Provision of Section 401 IPC makes the fact of mere belonging to a gang of robbers or thieves punishable offence -- However, 'belonging to' does not mean a casual association with thieves or robbers but requires there shall be an agreement to habitually commit theft or robbery.

(Para 20)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 401 – Belonging to gang of thieves -- Two ingredients required to bring home the charges u/s 401 IPC -- First one is agreement to habitually commit theft or robbery and second is participation by any person in that agreement.

(Para 20)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 401 – Belonging to gang of thieves – Acquittal -- Allegation qua the appellants-accused is that they all were present at one place with an intention to commit robbery -- However, there is no allegation that all the appellants-accused were in agreement to habitually commit theft or robbery -- Therefore, in the absence of any allegation to this extent, no offence u/s 401 IPC is made out -- Appellants-accused acquitted.

(Para 20)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 411 – Dishonestly receiving stolen property -- Important ingredients to constitute an offence u/s 411 IPC is the 'stolen property' and that any person dishonestly received or retained that stolen property knowingly or have reasons to believe the same to be stolen property.

(Para 21)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 411 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 114 -- Dishonestly receiving stolen property – Acquittal -- Onus to prove -- Prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that the alleged motor cycle, which was recovered from one of the appellants, was a 'stolen property' -- Presumption of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act can only be invoked once the prosecution discharge their initial burden -- Merely because the accused-appellants could not prove the ownership of the motor cycle, the initial onus still remains upon the prosecution to prove that the recovered bike is a 'stolen property' -- Merely on the basis of presumption, the accused-appellants cannot be held guilty u/s 411 IPC -- Accused-appellants acquitted.

(Para 25)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-A, 201, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Snatching of mobile – Regular bail -- Keeping in view the custody period of the petitioner i.e. 04 months and 22 days; no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner; he is not involved in any other case and the fact that conclusion of trial is likely to take a considerable time as the case is at the stage of framing of the charge, petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail during trial.

(Para 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 238, 240, 243, 489C – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 439 – Counterfeit currency – Proclaimed offender – Regular bail – Petitioner remained a proclaimed offender and had been evading his arrest for as long as 15 years – However, instant case is a case where the petitioner has been nominated on the basis of a disclosure statement of co-accused, who has since expired and no recovery of any counterfeit currency and coin was effected from the petitioner – Petitioner behind bars since the last about 1 ½ years – Trial is not likely to be concluded in immediate future as only 2 PWs out of cited 16 PWs have been examined till date – Petition accepted and the petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 1-4)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 279, 337, 338, 427, 304-A – Death by rash and negligent driving – Conviction of driver -- Cross-examination of PW-1/ injured (complainant) would clearly establish that he had seen the driver of the offending vehicle when after the accident he came out and ran away leaving the vehicle at the spot -- Merely because the owner of the vehicle was not examined does not in any manner detract from the testimony, who has clearly identified the accused not only at the time of the occurrence but also in the Court -- Thus, by no stretch of imagination can it be held that the identity of the petitioner was not established – PW1 stated that the car was being driven in a rash and negligent manner -- Minor contractions in fact would show that the witnesses in question are not tutored witnesses – Held, the prosecution has established its case against the petitioner beyond any reasonable doubt – Revision dismissed.

(Para 10, 11)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 279, 337, 338, 427, 304-A – Death by rash and negligent driving – Conviction of driver – Reduction of sentence -- Since the petitioner is a first-time offender and the occurrence is almost 11 years old, the sentence of 01 year imposed by the Lower Appellate Court reduced to a period of 09 months but subject to a payment of Rs.25,000/- as fine to be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.

(Para 14)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 401 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Summary case – Regular trial – Specific order of Magistrate – Requirement of -- When the evidence of the parties, in the chief examination, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) were recorded in verbatim and was faithfully placed on record then for merely not recording the order observing that the matter would be tried as a summons case or as a regular trial would not itself vitiate the trial conducted by the Magistrate of the Trial Court, when it has not resulted in miscarriage of justice – Ld. Sessions Judge’s Court only on technicalities set aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court and ordered for a de-novo trial -- Sessions Judge's Court ought to have decided the appeal before it on its merit – Revision allowed, judgment passed by ld. ASJ set aside, matter remanded to ld. ASJ for its fresh disposal, in accordance with law.

(Para 18)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376B, 376(2)(N), 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Rape – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner is a doctor in a government hospital where the complainant was allegedly working as a nurse -- FIR indicates that parties were in a physical relationship since May 2016 -- FIR was lodged in October 2017 -- In the facts and circumstances of the case, custodial interrogation is not required – Direction given in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail.

(Para 1-6)

Public Gambling Act, 1867 (3 of 1867), Section 5, 13-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of FIR / Charge under Gambling Act -- Non-compliance of Section 5 of the Gambling Act and section 155(2) Cr.P.C -- Even no independent witness joined – Proceedings initiated against the petitioner are untenable, especially when the raid leading to lodging of FIR itself was from the threshold marred by procedural irregularity -- Same is a ground sufficient to quash the FIR and consequent proceedings in order to prevent abuse of process of law and secure of ends of justice.

(Para 18-20)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Abetment to suicide – Anticipatory bail -- Suicide note show that the deceased was under extreme stress and tension on account of matrimonial discord and on account of pendency of some litigation pertaining to grant of maintenance -- It will certainly be debatable as to whether the aforesaid conduct as mentioned in the suicide note would qualify to be termed as an abetment to commit suicide -- Petitioner has joined investigation and she is not required for any custodial interrogation -- Petitioner not involved in any other case -- Interim directions made absolute.

(Para 5-8)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 380, 454 – Theft in dwelling house – Lurking house trespass -- Acquittal u/s 380 IPC -- State does not dispute the fact that offence punishable u/s 454 IPC is not stand alone offence and after acquittal of the petitioner of offence punishable under Section 380 IPC, 454 IPC cannot be maintained – Conviction u/s 454 IPC set aside.

(Para 6, 11)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 380, 411 – Theft in dwelling house – Acquittal u/s 380 IPC -- Recovery from the co-accused -- Petitioner was never charged for offence punishable u/s 411 IPC -- There is no order on record to show that the Trial Court ever exercised power u/s 216 Cr.P.C. to alter the charge -- Thus, the Courts below erred in holding the petitioner guilty of offence punishable under Section 411 IPC in the absence of charge -- Conviction u/s 411 IPC set aside.

(Para 8-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-A, 279, 427 – Death  by rash and negligent driving -- Conviction u/s 304-A, 279, 427 IPC – Agony of protracted trial -- Reduction of sentence – Petitioner has undergone the sentence of 6 months and 12 days out of the total sentence of 1 year -- Petitioner facing the agony of protracted trial for the last 09 years approximately, ends of justice would be suitably met, if the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to the one already undergone – Sentence reduced already undergone – Apart from fine, petitioner directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased.

(Para 11-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 447, 386 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheating and forgery – Quashing of FIR -- De-facto complainant/second respondent does not disclose any act of the present appellants or their participation in the commission of crime -- They are neither concerned with the sale deed nor in possession of the subject property nor are parties to the civil proceedings and it is not the case of the complainant that either the appellants have played any active/passive role either in scribing the document or are facilitators or witness to the document in reference to which the complaint has been made for cheating and committing forgery or have played any role in delivery of possession of the subject property in question – It appears that the de-facto complainant has implicated the present appellants being members of the family to put pressure for obtaining possession of the subject property and to settle the civil dispute – Held, High Court ought to have exercised its power u/s 482 CrPC for quashing of the criminal complaint and proceedings in consequence thereof qua the present appellants – Appeals allowed, FIR and all the consequential proceedings qua the present appellants stand quashed.

(Para 18-23)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 304 Part II – Murder – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- PW-3-daughter in her cross examination stated that her mother have said something to her father on which the father started beating her mother -- Immediately her father had dressed up and moved her mother to the Hospital where the other family members have gone -- These aspects would indicate that there was no pre-mediation to cause the death and the incident had occurred at the spur of the moment – If these aspects are kept in view as mitigating circumstances, conviction u/s 302 IPC would not be justified -- Hence, appellant held guilty of the offence u/s 304 Part II of IPC -- Appellant has already undergone more 12 years of sentence, period undergone will be sufficient punishment -- Sentence modified, the appellant ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.

(Para 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 182 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195, 482 – False complaint – Quashing of Kalandra -- Kalandra/Complaint u/s 182 IPC – Cognizance of -- Court of competent jurisdiction can take cognizance of an offence punishable u/s 182 IPC only on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or his superior officer -- Mere direction by the competent authority to present Kalandara on its behalf by the SHO Police Station will not comply with the provisions of law -- Complaint was lodged by the petitioner with the Superintendent of Police but Kalandara has been presented by the SHO Police Station (i.e. by the public servant who is administratively subordinate to the Superintendent of Police), the same cannot be held to be valid and legal in terms of Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. -- Court cannot take cognizance of offence punishable u/s 182 IPC against the petitioner -- Kalandara and all proceedings subsequent thereto quashed.

(Para 12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 307, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Appellant and co-accused acquitted u/s 323, 307, 34 IPC, however convicted u/s 25 of Arms Act -- In view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumersinbh Umedsinh Rajput @ Sumersinh’s case 2008 (1) Crimes 57, charge u/s 25 of Arms Act is not sustainable -- Appeal allowed, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence convicting the appellant u/s 25 of Arms Act  set aside and the appellant acquitted of the charge u/s 25 of Arms Act.

(Para 3, 11, 12)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Compromise/ Compounding after conviction -- Parties have settled the dispute and complainant had accepted the sum towards the full and final settlement of the cheque, on the satisfaction of the complainant -- Sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence u/s 138 of NI Act is liable to be set aside -- Petitioner directed to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- -- Conviction and sentence of imprisonment set aside on the basis of compromise.

(Para 5, 6)

Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners’ (Temporary Release) Act, 1962 (11 of 1962), Section 3(1)(d) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 427,120-B, 34 – Murder – Life imprisonment – Ailment of mother -- Parole – Petitioner availed parole/ furlough on different occasions, without any default -- Petitioner is having old mother aged about 86 years and there is no major male member to look after her and she is suffering from heart ailment which requires surgery – Nothing on record to show that the release of petitioner on parole is likely to endanger the security of the State and maintenance of public order -- Petitioner ordered to be released on parole for a period of four weeks.

(Para 4-8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Cheque bounce case – Illegal activity -- Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal – Ld. Trial Court dismissed the complaint as Rs.3 lakhs paid to respondent/accused for getting job in the Department of Railway which is a Government Department as it was for illegal activities and it cannot be called as legally enforceable liability -- No infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order whereby trial Court has acquitted the respondent -- Leave to appeal rejected.

(Para 3-10)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 – Test Identification Parade (TIP) -- TIPs belong to the stage of investigation by the police -- It assures that investigation is proceeding in the right direction -- It is a rule of prudence which is required to be followed in cases where the accused is not known to the witness or the complainant – Evidence of a TIP is admissible u/s 9 of the Indian Evidence Act -- However, it is not a substantive piece of evidence -- Instead, it is used to corroborate the evidence given by witnesses before a court of law at the time of trial -- Therefore, TIPs, even if held, cannot be considered in all the cases as trustworthy evidence on which the conviction of an accused can be sustained.

(Para 26)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 162 -- Test Identification Parade (TIP) -- If identification in the TIP has taken place after the accused is shown to the witnesses, then not only is the evidence of TIP inadmissible, even an identification in a court during trial is meaningless -- Even a TIP conducted in the presence of a police officer is inadmissible in light of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(Para 29)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 -- Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (3 of 1984), Section 3(2)(e) -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 – Test Identification Parade (TIP) -- Investigating Officer stated that he has not taken any steps to ensure that the accused and the witnesses do not see each other -- Conduct of the TIP, coupled with the hovering presence of the police during the conduct of the TIP vitiated the entire process -- Trial Court as well as the High Court have committed a serious error in relying on the evidence of the TIP witnesses for convicting and sentencing the Appellants -- Conviction and sentencing are not sustainable.

(Para 56)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Dowry death – Regular bail to husband -- Marriage in May, 2014, wife committed suicide on 4th March, 2021 – In FIR allegations pertaining to harassment caused to the deceased on account of demand of dowry -- Material witnesses examined -- Two minor children are with the grandparents -- Allegations regarding demand of dowry are general in nature -- In the cross-examination, complainant deposed that he did not remember any specific date of harassment caused or demand of dowry made – No cash and vehicle was given in the marriage -- Out of 15 prosecution witnesses, 03 witnesses examined -- Nothing on record to show that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents -- Court cannot ignore the fact that there are two minor children whose future is also at stake – Bail allowed.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 365/34, 367/34, 376(2)(g), 302/34, 201/34 IPC – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 137, 165 – Rape with murder – Fair trial – Cross-examination of witness -- Acquittal of accused – Out of the 49 witnesses examined by the prosecution, 10 material witnesses were not cross-examined and many other important witnesses were not adequately cross-examined by the defence counsel – Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act confers unbridled powers upon the trial courts to put any question at any stage to the witnesses to elicit the truth – Judge is not expected to be a passive umpire but is supposed to actively participate in the trial, and to question the witnesses to reach to a correct conclusion – Trial court acted as a passive umpire – Held, appellants-accused were deprived of their rights to have a fair trial, apart from the fact that the truth also could not be elicited by the trial court – Judgments and orders of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and the High Court are set aside – Appellants-accused acquitted by giving them a benefit of doubt.

(Para 34-37)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357(A) -- Acquittal of accused – Compensation to family – Right of – In view of Section 357(A) Cr.PC, the family members of the deceased-victim would be entitled to the compensation even though the accused have been acquitted.

(Para 35-37)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 356, 379, 411, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Compromise effected between the parties is genuine, voluntary, without any undue influence or pressure – FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed, qua the petitioners only.

(Para 2, 5, 6)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(wa) – Dishonour of cheque -- Complainant – Victim -- A complainant in a case U/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is not a victim as defined U/s 2(wa) of Cr.P.C.

(Para 19)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 378(4) – Cheque bounce complaint – Acquittal – Appeal -- A complainant in a case U/s 138 of NI Act is not entitled to file an appeal against acquittal according to the provision of Section 372 of Cr.P.C rather he may prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court invoking the provision of Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C.

(Para 19)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Cause of action – Demand Notice – Presumption of service -- Incorrect address -- Mere issuance of notice would not by itself give rise to a cause of action, same would arise only when the notice has been communicated to the drawer of the cheque and who fails to liquidate the cheque amount within the stipulated period -- Presumption of receipt of notice by drawer of the cheque can be raised only if the notice has been dispatched through registered post, to his correct address and such inference cannot be drawn if the notice has been sent on the incorrect address of the drawer of the cheque.

(Para 8)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing of – Demand Notice – Service of – Ground of -- Whether the notice of demand has been actually received by the petitioner/accused can be determined only during the trial of the case -- Argument that the impugned complaint deserves to be quashed on the aforesaid ground is, therefore, without any merit.

(Para 11)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing of -- Cognizance by Magistrate – Wrong mentioning of particulars of cheques and Memos -- Errors made by the ld. trial Magistrate in recording the particulars of the cheques and the memos cannot be termed as typographical in nature -- These errors are relating to essential aspects of the case and the same clearly reflects that the learned trial Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, has approached the case in a mechanical and negligent manner -- Impugned order passed by the learned trial Magistrate clearly reflects non-application of mind on his part and, as such, is not sustainable in law -- Impugned order, set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trial Court with a direction to pass a fresh order of cognizance on the basis of the material available before him after hearing the complainant/ respondent.

(Para 13-16)