Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 -- Tramadol tablets (282 grams) – Regular bail -- Intoxicating tablets containing tramadol with a total weight of 282 grams has allegedly been recovered from her – Petitioner is a lady with two minor children, is in custody for over 09 months, she is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

(Para 2-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 61, 85 – Alprasafe (2900 tablets of 05 mg each) were recovered from two – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 21.04.2020 -- Applicability of provisions of NDPS Act or Drugs and Cosmetics Act, is a debatable question that will be adjudicated at the trial only -- In the present scenario of Covid-19 pandemic where the Courts are working with restrictions and taking up only urgent matters, there is no likelihood of commencing or concluding of trial in near future -- Petitioner is a widow with minor children -- FSL report has yet not received to ascertain the quantity of the alleged scheduled drug contained therein -- Petition is allowed.

(Para 1,2,5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201 – Murder – Last seen evidence -- Motive -- Homicidal death not established or that in fact victim had died -- His body has not been recovered -- No belonging of victim recovered from the accused or on his disclosure statement – Accused alleged to have made disclosure statement pursuant whereto he got recovered a kirpan buried under eucalyptus tree which was taken into possession – Circumstance of last seen does not of itself lead to the inference that the accused has committed the crime -- It does not appeal to reason that a serving Army person would murder his colleague for mere Rs.40,000/- -- Held, prosecution not able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt -- Appeal allowed, conviction and order of sentence set aside.

(Para 36-46)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Regular bail -- Allegation that couple entered into marriage and boy side to spend money to facilitate immigration of couple to Canada – Girl has been successful in migrating to Canada and the boy has failed to do so and apparently appears to be a matrimonial dispute – A debatable issue arises over the very applicability of Section 420 IPC and his joining the investigation would suffice the purpose – Petitioner to appear before the investigating officer and on his doing so, he shall be released on bail till submission of report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. (challan) – Thereafter, he will be permitted to furnish regular bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(Para 4-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 148, 149, 302, 324 – Two incidents one at Truck Union and another at Civil Hospital – Murder took place at Truck Union – Later injuries inflicted at Civil Hospital -- Three surviving appellants – Overt Act -- Allegation of lalkara – Consideration of -- 

– ‘GS’ alleged to be armed with handle of spade has not been attributed any overt act in the occurrence either at the Truck Union or at Civil Hospital – Only role attributed to accused ‘SPS’ is of raising a lalkara at the time of the second occurrence and both of them were alleged to be armed only with handle of spade, and the fact that they are all members of one family, the chances of their false implication cannot be ruled out -- Their appeal accepted and they acquitted of the charges by giving them the benefit of doubt.

-- ‘I.S.’ alleged to have given two blows with sword which hit on the right index finger and palm of right hand of PW1 -- As per PW9 Doctor these injuries were caused with sharp weapon and were simple in nature – Considering the fact that no overt act has been attributed to ‘I.S.’ in the incident at Truck Union and his presence is doubtful, he is acquitted of the charges u/s 148 and Section 302/149 IPC by giving him the benefit of doubt -- However, his conviction u/s 324 IPC and the sentence thereunder maintained.

(Para 4, 56-59)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 406, 120-B, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Rape case – Regular bail -- Keeping in view the cumulative facts that there was relationship interse the parties from the year 2014 till the application was given in the year 2019 and they had also travelled out of station to various places, it would be a moot question as such as to whether an offence u/s 376 IPC is made out -- Similarly whether there was any cheating and inducement -- Petitioner has already undergone 5 months and 10 days imprisonment -- Considerable time shall be taken in concluding the trial especially in view of the Covid-19 Pandemic, petitioner has undergone sufficient period of detention and he is entitled for the benefit of regular bail.

(Para 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 354, 451, 109, 323 & 34 – Outrage modesty of woman – Anticipatory bail -- In attempt to outrage the modesty of the complainant, petitioner had pulled the chunni of the complainant and also caused bruises with his hands on the face and breast of the complainant -- However, it is not disputed that the petitioner had not used any weapon -- Therefore, nothing is required to be recovered from him, as such – Petition allowed, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail.

(Para 1,5,6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18, 50 – NDPS matter – Joint Memo of recovery – Regular bail -- Consent memo and recovery memo shows that a joint memo was prepared and even a joint consent was taken from the accused persons – High Court has issued guidelines from time to time with regard to investigation to be carried out in the NDPS cases, however, it appears that the investigating officers are not following the same -- Petition allowed -- Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 4-7)

Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (8 of 1975), Section 3(2), 3(3) 4 and 24 -- Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976, Rule 4 -- Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 (10 of 1983), Section 2, 6 , 24-A -- Percentage of area under roads, open space etc. in layout plans -- Common areas and facilities -- Delicencing of area meant for residential purposes and allocating the same to commercial projects -- An ambiguous term was used in the Builder-Buyer agreement that 8.0 acre was reserved for “future development” -- It is beyond comprehension how builder himself could reserve a part of the area (8.0 acres) out of 18.98 acres for future development -- Builder acted in a manner as if he was not governed by any Enactment/Rules -- Reliance placed on Builder-Buyer agreement is absurd -- An agreement between parties cannot override the law lay down to regulate urbanization and to prevent ill-planned and haphazard development -- No justification is forthcoming for delicensing of part of the area meant for housing project for commercial purpose and a huge mall (Ambience Mall) having been allowed to be raised thereon – Rights of the residents of the housing project need to be preserved -- Held, order delicencing part of residential area for commercial purpose is without authority of law and needs to be quashed -- As regards, the illegal actions and offence, if any, made out, and possible collusion between the builder and State authorities, a separate investigation is necessary by an independent agency – Direction given to Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the entire issue after registering a formal FIR by a team of Officers to be chosen by the Director, CBI within six weeks -- An effort shall be made to complete the entire investigation within six months and a status report be submitted in sealed cover within three months.

(Para 28-36)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 279, 304-A – Motor vehicle accident case -- Causing death by negligence – Contention that petitioner/convict is suffering agony of trial for almost 6 years and has been leading a disciplined life and is not involved in any other criminal case, prayed for a lenient view -- Actual sentence undergone 3 months and 28 days -- Conviction of the accused-petitioner maintained, his substantive sentence of 1 year is reduced to the sentence already undergone -- Fine of Rs. 1,000/- shall remain intact -- Petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to be paid to the victims/legal representatives of deceased.

(Para 2-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 506, 148, 149 – Charges framed u/s 307, 323, 506, 34 IPC – Attempt to murder -- Regular bail -- Petitioner suffered three injuries including two fractures on the fingers of his left hand – Though in the said case, the police had filed a cancellation report, yet the fact remains that in the protest petition filed by the petitioner, the proceedings are pending before the SDJM – Petitioner is attributed a sword blow on the abdomen of Taya of the complainant -- Whether or not the petitioner is an aggressor, is yet to be determined -- Petitioner has been in custody since 21.07.2019 -- Challan has already been presented and the charges have also been framed -- Petition allowed, regular bail granted to petitioner.

(Para 11-13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 370, 406, 420, 120-B IPC -- Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of 1983), Section 24 – Immigration matter – Regular bail -- There is no evidence of the petitioner having received any part of the amount allegedly paid by the complainant -- Amount was paid only to the co-accused -- In the absence of any specific overt acts being attributed to the petitioner, Court held that he would be entitled to protection subject to conditions -- Petition allowed.

(Para 1-3)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211  -- Framing of charge – Prima-facie -- At the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to sift and weigh the prosecution material on record only for the limited purposes to find out if it, prima-facie, discloses the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence against the accused and their involvement in the crime.

(Para 9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211  -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 -- Attempt to murder –Framing of charge – Intention or knowledge – Prima facie -- Intention has to be absolute and specific and cannot be confused with the recklessness of the offender -- Unless and until this necessary ingredient is present, the charge u/s 307 IPC would not be made out -- Court has to satisfy itself that at least, prima-facie, the act by accused irrespective of its result was done with such intention or knowledge and under the circumstances, as mentioned in the section.

(Para 13)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211  -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45 -- Medical opinion -- Framing of charge -- Medical opinion given by a doctor is only a guiding factor for the Courts and the opinion does not carry a binding effect -- Courts are free to examine and evaluate the nature of injuries independently to arrive at a just conclusion.

(Para 15)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 326 – Attempt to murder – Injury on head – Relevance of -- Merely because the injury was caused on the head, this alone would not be sufficient to charge for the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC -- Nowhere mentioned that the assailants had come with an intention to commit murder -- Nature of injury does not, prima-facie, make out an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC -- Considering the nature of the weapon (Spade/kassi) used while causing grievous hurt, a prima-facie case u/s 326 IPC would be made out for charge.

(Para 15,17)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211  -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 447 -- Criminal trespass – Joint land – Framing of charge – Partition suit is still pending and rights of co-sharers are yet to eb determined -- Land in question was described as joint -- Necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of criminal trespass punishable u/s 447 IPC are not made out.

(Para 16)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 148, 307, 379-B, 427, 436, 506 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 1959), Section 25 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- No material except the disclosure statement suffered by co-accused -- Petitioner in custody since 23.02.2020, challan having been presented but charges yet to be framed – Bail allowed.

(Para 2-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 304-B, 406 – Dowry death – Regular bail -- Custody since 25.07.2018 – Trial is likely to take some time -- An application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the prosecution for summoning the additional accused -- Covid-19 pandemic situation -- Courts are not working at full strength, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars -- Petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.

(Para 2,6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 336, 353, 186, 212, 216-A, 148/149 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 1959), Sections 25/54 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- No injury is attributed to the petitioner, he is 24 years of age, is in custody for over 01 year -- Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time -- Concession of regular bail granted to the petitioner.

(Para 1,5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 – Anticipatory bail – Three other cases -- 1.7 kg of Heroin recovered from co-accused – Petitioner was never apprehended at the spot and that the only evidence against him is in the shape of disclosure statement, the admissibility and veracity of which would be tested during the course of trial – For other three cases, he was never arrested at the spot and has been granted anticipatory bail – Petition is accepted and it is ordered that the petitioner in the event of his arrest shall be released on bail.

(Para 3, 7, 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B -- Forgery and fabrication – Anticipatory bail -- Allegations that petitioner forged and fabricated the documents to avoid the tax liability -- All the documents are already in possession of the police -- Whether the petitioner had any role to play in the entire gamut or he has been made scapegoat, as alleged, can be ascertained once the petitioner joins the investigation vis a vis the documentary evidence already seized – Petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail.

(Para 5,6)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 377, 34 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Unnatural offence – Regular bail -- Record or the circumstances of the case do not show that there is any reasonable ground for believing that the petitioner is likely to bring himself into association with known criminals if released on bail; or that he will expose himself to some moral, physical or psychological danger – Policy and provision of the Juvenile Justice Act is in favour of grant of bail to the juvenile -- Since the circumstances or the grounds justifying denial of the bail are not discernible in the case, therefore, the petitioner deserve to be allowed concession of bail.

(Para 1, 5-7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157 -- FIR to Ilaka Magistrate/CJM with delay of 11 days – Effect of -- Held, delay in compliance of Section 157 of the Code cannot, in itself, be a good ground to acquit the appellant -- Albeit, this fact has to be considered at the time of examining the credibility of the version of the eye-witnesses.

(Para 3, 4)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157 -- Murder -- Name of deceased missing in proceedings – Effect of -- Fact that the field unit had not recorded the name of the deceased in the proceedings, is inconsequential for these details are duly mentioned in the panchayatnama and other documents which were prepared on the same day and were sent to Doctor (PW-3) who had conducted the post mortem -- Lapse on the part of the field unit in non-mentioning the name of the deceased would not justify an order of acquittal.

(Para 6)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections u/s 498-A, 506, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Quashing of complaint/summoning order after Proclaimed offender order – Held, it would be in the interest of justice to see at the first instance whether any offence is made out against the petitioners as per allegations levelled against them in the complaint or not -- Because if the complaint fails, as a necessary corollary, all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom would automatically go.

(Para 1, 14, 15)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections u/s 498-A, 506, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Summoning order -- Proclaimed offender order – Quashing of -- Father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law – Role of – Specific allegations – Requirement of – No direct and specific allegations against the petitioners that they had given beatings to the complainant or demanded any dowry article or misappropriated the shtridhan – It has become a common practice to use the provisions of Section 498-A IPC as a weapon rather than shield by disgruntled wives – Casual reference of their names that husband of the complainant gave her beatings at the instance of petitioners – Held, case in hand is a sheer abuse of process of law -- Consequently, the complaint and all subsequent proceedings including the summoning order and order declaring proclamation offender, qua petitioners are quashed.

(Para 1,18,19)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 -- Cheating for getting employment -- Regular bail -- Co-accused are alleged to have made the fraudulent assurance to the complainant of getting employment for him in FCI and to have received the amount from him -- Petitioner is merely alleged to have accompanied the complainant for his joining on asking of his co-accused and did not make any fraudulent representation and did not receive any amount from the complainant -- Question as to involvement of the petitioner in commission of the subject offences is to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be produced during trial -- Due to pandemic of Covid-19 trial is likely to take long time -- Petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail, he is ordered to be released on regular bail.

(Para 9,10)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 377 (2) – Appeal against inadequacy of sentence – Accused’s right to plead for acquittal – Held, accused is justified in contending that it is open to the said accused to challenge the finding and order of conviction recorded against him in the appeal filed by the State -- In the appeal filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the accused may plead for his acquittal or for reduction of the sentence.

(Para 6)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 148, 304 Part I, 326 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Total five accused, State pursuing appeal against one accused -- Death of deceased by one fatal blow on the head, which was with the intention of causing his death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the case would be covered by Section 304 Part I, IPC -- It is certainly not a case to simply proceed u/s Section 326 of the IPC -- Accused convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 Part I and Section 148, IPC.

(Para 1, 12-16)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 139, 146 – Defence of accused -- Cross examination of prosecution witness on that point – Requirement of – A witness is required to be cross-examined to bring forth inconsistencies, discrepancies and to prove the untruthfulness of the witness – Party intending to bring evidence to impeach or contradict the testimony of a witness must give an opportunity to explain or answer when the witness is in the witness box.

(Para 56-63)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 364A – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Kidnapping – Last seen evidence – Murder – Burdon of proof – When the prosecution has proved the act of kidnapping and the last seen evidence soon before the approximate time of death of victim – Prosecution has discharged the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt – It was then for the accused to rebut the presumption of any other intervening fact before the death of the victim.

(Para 77-81)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 364-A, 34 – Kidnapping and murder – Death Sentence/ Life Sentence -- Motive of the accused to take life was to become rich by not doing hard work but by demanding ransom after kidnapping a young, innocent boy of 8 years – Considering circumstances and facts on record, case falls short of the “rarest of rare” cases where a death sentence alone deserves to be awarded to the appellants -- Death sentence converted into the life imprisonment till the end of the life, no remission till the accused completes 25 years of imprisonment.

(Para 100)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape case -- Compromise quashing -- Money changed hands – Would certainly fall within the ambit of 'undue influence' as it would amount to bestowing an unscrupulous gift to influence the prosecutrix from pursuing criminal proceedings against the accused – Serious and grave allegations levelled by the prosecutrix against the petitioner who unabashedly indulged in blackmailing and threatening her and her family -- Allegations levelled in the FIR, prima facie reflects the mental depravity of the petitioner who tried to exploit a hapless married woman by fraudulently luring her into a relationship with him, raping her and thereafter putting her matrimonial ties with her husband in peril by coercing her to continue her dalliance with him -- Not a fit case to invoke inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR.

(Para 12-19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(3) – Acquittal in rape case – Leave to appeal – Accused was driver of the official vehicle of husband of prosecutrix – She was pregnant on the date of alleged incident – Prosecutrix and her husband did not report about the alleged incident dated 04.03.2014, to the police, till 02.02.2015 -- Even during the next 15 days after the alleged incident, she kept on accompanying accused in the official vehicle for medical check-up -- There is no corroborative evidence in the shape of medical report, to strengthen the testimony of prosecutrix regarding the alleged rape -- No reliable evidence for continuously giving threats to the prosecutrix, on her mobile phone -- Trial Court appreciated the evidence led by the parties in right perspective, while giving benefit of doubt to respondent No.2/accused -- There is no illegality in the impugned judgment – Application seeking grant of leave to appeal dismissed.

(Para 2, 17-19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 498-A, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Compromise after conviction – Quashing of FIR/ Conviction/ Order of sentence -- To secure the ends of justice and in the interest of all concerned, fit case to invoke inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C and quash the FIR registered – Sentence for the offence under Sections 323, 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 IPC for a period of two years is set aside on the basis of the compromise.

(Para 1, 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A, 506, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 (4) -- Dowry demand – Physical assault – Acquittal of accused – Leave to appeal -- Allegations that she was subjected to merciless physical assault on a number of occasions, however, no medical evidence in support -- Father of the complainant while deposing admitted that in fact the main dispute between his daughter and her husband was on account of a suspicion, which his daughter had qua her husband having illicit relations with his sister-in-law – Complainant herself admitted during her deposition that the dowry articles and the istridhan, which were given to her at the time of her marriage, were in her possession and had been under lock and key in her matrimonial home -- On a complaint moved to the SSP, an inquiry was conducted, it was found that no such instances of harassment had ever taken place -- Complainant miserably failed to rebut the aforementioned inquiry report in any manner – Not a fit case for grant of special leave to appeal, acquittal order upheld.

(Para 8, 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 324/34, 452/120-B, 506 -- Compromise of matter after conviction – Held, there is no statutory embargo against invoking powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C., after conviction of accused by the trial Court and during pendency of the appeal against such conviction -- Conviction maintained however, their order of sentence recorded by the trial court under Sections 324/34, 452/120-B and 506 IPC is modified to the period, if any, already undergone by them.

(Para 1,7)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 24 -- Extrajudicial confession is a weak type of evidence however, it cannot be discarded outrightly.

(Para 26)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 24 – Murder -- Extra-judicial confession – Blood on danda – Blood grouping of -- As per FSL report, human blood was detected but blood group was not ascertained, there is no result, with regard to, blood grouping -- Blood so allegedly found, on the danda, does not stand sufficiently connected to be that of deceased -- No other sufficient evidence, coming on record -- Circumstance relating to extra-judicial confession, has been rightly discarded by the trial Court.

(Para 26, 27)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder -- Injury by fall – Possibility of -- Doctor deposed possibility cannot be ruled out of suffering of the injuries, in case a person, under intoxication falls on stones or forcefully strikes against the wall and in cross-examination that injury of fracture of rib, can be result of fall on a hard surface -- Considering the same, it cannot be concluded with certainty that the injuries in question were caused by lathi of budberry tree and this also gives dent to the prosecution version.

(Para 28)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8, 106 – Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Motive -- In case based on circumstantial evidence, motive gains importance -- Dispute, which had taken place about one and half year ago, relating to boundary wall of the fields, relating to which, compromise effected -- No satisfactory evidence, coming on record -- Even, no evidence, relating to the matter having given quietus, by the police, as such, has been led -- In the light of the same, the motive part, does not stand established.

(Para 29)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8, 24, 106 – Murder -- Extra-judicial confession – Blood on danda/ weapon of offence -- Blood grouped not connected with the blood of deceased – Doctor deposition that possibility cannot be ruled out of suffering of the injuries falls on stones or forcefully strikes against the wall and in cross-examination that injury of fracture of rib, can be result of fall on a hard surface -- Motive of previous quarrel not proved --  Prosecution version cannot be termed to be free from doubt and precisely, benefit of such doubt so arising, ought to be extended to the appellant – Appeal allowed, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside.

(Para 26-31)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 308, 323, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Attempt to murder -- Compromise quashing – Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue – FIR u/s 308, 323, 506, 34 of the IPC (Challan presented u/s 307, 323, 506, 34 of the IPC) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 11, 12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304 Part II – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Sentenced reduced to two years R.I. -- Appellant beaten the deceased with bamboo stick on the head -- Appellant with the help of other servants took the deceased to the hospital where the deceased died – Trial Court convicted the appellant u/s 304 Part-II with ten years R.I. -- High Court, reduced the sentence from ten years to five years – Appellant has two daughters of marriageable age viz. 19 and 21 years and there is no male member in the family to take care of the family and also of the daughters -- Sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant reduced from five years to two years -- Since the above order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the same may not be quoted as a precedent in any other case.

(Para 3-5, 8-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 379-B, 454, 323, 506 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Snatching case – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue -- FIR alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed qua the petitioner, on the basis of compromise subject to costs of Rs.10,000/-.

(Para 6, 7)

Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 17(3) -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Arms license cancelled on account of registration of criminal cases – Challenge to -- Acquitted in one case and in two cases, F.I.R's against him were cancelled – It is not the case of the respondents that he has ever misused the arms license issued to him – Held, respondents could not by invoking Section 17(3)(b) cancel the arms license of the petitioner – Writ petition allowed, cancellation orders quashed.

(Para 1-4, 16,17)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 323, 148, 149 – Kidnapping matter -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue -- FIR u/s 363, 323, 148, 149 IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 9,10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of FIR – Settlement between parties – No allegation against the petitioner that he was directly involved in the rash and negligent work of the Contractor, which resulted into death of two workers – No offence under Section 304-A IPC is made out against the petitioner -- Legal heirs/family members of two deceased have received Rs. 10,40,000/- each as compensation and have shown their satisfaction that they have received sufficient amount -- Even Insurance Company has paid an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/- to the legal heirs/family members of each deceased as well as the State of Haryana has also paid a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to legal heirs/family members of each deceased -- In view of the above facts and circumstance and also in view of the fact that the matter stands amicably settled, the petition is allowed and FIR u/s 304-A IPC with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. hereby quashed.

(Para 17-21)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 365, 366-A -- FIR u/s 365 – Challan u/s 363, 366-A – Run-away couple marriage – Proclaimed person -- Compromise quashing of FIR – Petitioner no.1/girl had gone out of her own free will and solemnised marriage with petitioner no.2 -- Offence u/s 363, 366A of IPC not made out against the petitioner no.2 – Petition for police protection was also filed by the petitioners -- FIR and all consequential proceedings including order declaring petitioner No. 2 as proclaimed person being abuse of process are liable to be quashed for securing the ends of justice -- In view of the settlement between the parties, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak -- Continuation of the criminal case will subject petitioner No. 2 to great oppression and injustice – FIR and consequential proceedings including order declaring petitioner no. 2 as proclaimed person are quashed.

(Para 11-16)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366 -- Kidnapping – Run-away couple – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Offence of kidnapping is serious and non-compoundable and the Courts should not in the ordinary circumstances interfere and quash the FIR registered -- However, there are always exceptions to the normal rules and certain categories of cases, which deserve consideration specially when it is case of love affair between teenagers and on fear of the society and pressure from the community, one party alleges kidnapping, cases where the accused and the victim are well known to each other, and allegation of kidnapping is levelled only because the marriage was performed against the wishes of the parents -- FIR registered u/s 363, 366 and 120-B IPC and all subsequent proceedings are quashed.

(Para 5-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Medical negligence death – No Medical Board opinion – Compromise between parties – Quashing of FIR -- No expert opinion of the medical board that petitioner ever committed any negligence, while performing operation and was responsible for the death of wife of complainant -- Compromise will bring peace and harmony between the parties -- FIR registered u/s 304-A IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.

(Para 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 273, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) -- FIR u/s 406, 498-A – Application for examining of prosecution witness through video conferencing – Held, JMIC clearly erred in dismissing the application -- Impugned order set aside, application for examination through video conferencing allowed -- Accused would be allowed all adequate opportunity to cross examine the witness.

(Para 7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 182, 401 -- Acquittal in 182 Cr.P.C. proceedings -- Revisional jurisdiction of High Court is quite limited -- Court is to interfere only if there is an illegality or infirmity apparent on the face of the judgment/order passed by a Court below or the same is perverse -- Merely because another view in the matter is possible, no inference with such judgment is to be done – Revision dismissed.

(Para 13-15)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 190, 482 -- Cancellation report by police – Non-acceptance by Trial Court – Case adjourned for complainant’s evidence – Challenged by accused – Remedy of – Held, after the complainant produces the evidence, Ld. Magistrate may or may not summon the accused -- If the accused are summoned, they have got remedy of challenging that order by way of filing a revision petition before the Court of Sessions or/and filing appropriate application (s) in the trial Court itself – Accused have not been summoned so far – Petition dismissed.

(Para 20-30)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Inherent jurisdiction of High court -- Section 482 Cr.P.C. deals with inherent powers of the High Court providing that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

(Para 29)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Rape – Quashing of FIR -- Proclaimed offender – Compromise between the parties -- Relationship was not based on a false promise of marriage – Affidavit submitted by the prosecutrix establish that the relationship was consensual with the prosecutrix, 28 years at that time -- Both were major and capable of taking a reasoned decision to enter into a physical relationship -- It is also not the case of the prosecutrix that the act complained off occurred only once or that she had been subjected to any kind of force -- It is not her case that the complainant has forcibly raped her --  FIR would further reflect that the marriage was not being solemnized on account of his parents not giving their consent – Held, it could not be said that he had made a false promise of marriage, only to entice her into the said physical relationship -- Very offence of rape would not be established -- FIR u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and all subsequent proceeding including the order declaring him to be a proclaimed offender are quashed since the continuation of the same would tantamount to abuse of the process of law.

(Para 5, 15-18)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 482 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 – Civil suit – Handwriting expert report – F.I.R. w.r.t. forged receipts – Sustainability of -- Quashing of FIR -- Handwriting expert in civil suit has opined that signatures in all the four receipts did not tally with the sample signatures which were of respondent No.2 -- It was only thereafter, FIR was registered -- In the Summary Suit, issue No.5 has been framed by the Court “whether the defendant proved that the plaintiff has fabricated the forged signature illegally and created forged receipts” – Held, when the issue as to the genuineness of the receipts is pending consideration in the civil suit, the FIR ought not to have been allowed to continue as it would prejudice the interest of the parties and the stand taken by them in the civil suit -- Based on the sole opinion of the handwriting expert, the FIR ought not to have been registered -- Continuation of FIR would amount to abuse of the process of Court – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR allowed.

(Para 18, 19)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Sections 45, 72, 118(a) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Quashing of complaint -- Presumption of legal enforceability debt – Rebuttal of -- ‘Y’ admitted the issuance of cheques -- Once the issuance of cheque is admitted/established, the presumption would arise u/s 139 of the N.I. Act in favour of the holder of cheque that is the complainant-appellant No.3 -- Burden lies upon the accused to rebut the presumption by adducing evidence -- High Court did not keep in view that until the accused discharges his burden, the presumption u/s 139 of N.I. Act will continue to remain -- When disputed questions of facts are involved which need to be adjudicated after the parties adduce evidence, the complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act ought not to have been quashed by the High Court by taking recourse to Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(Para 20)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 325, 379-B, 506, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Snatching case -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Since the parties have arrived at a compromise and have decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue – FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority.

(Para 10, 11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 427, 452, 376, 511, 148, 149 – Rape – Attempt to rape – Compromise -- Quashing of FIR -- Contention that there is no allegation of commission of rape and allegation is attempt to commit rape – This fact has not been disputed by complainant – FIR u/s 323, 427, 452, 376, 511, 148 and 149 IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of compromise.

(Para 5-9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366-A – Kidnapping – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Petitioners have solemnised marriage and the complainant, who is mother of petitioner No.1, has suffered a statement before learned Magistrate in support of compromise -- Continuation of the proceedings before the trial Court in the instant FIR qua the petitioners shall be an abuse of the process of law -- FIR u/s 363 and 366-A IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

(Para 6,7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 354-D – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 12 – Compromise quashing -- Compromise is found genuine, voluntarily and without any coercion or undue influence -- Taking into consideration the nature of allegations and the fact that the matter has been compromised between the parties FIR u/s 354-D IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

(Para 11, 12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 364, 506 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 12 – Bail to juvenile – Right of -- Intention of the legislature is to grant bail to the juvenile irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence, alleged to have been committed by him and the same can be declined only in case where reasonable grounds are there for believing that the release :

--       is likely to bring him into the association of any known criminal or

--       expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or

--       that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

Juvenile is entitled to bail as a matter of right unless the case falls in the exceptions carved out in the provision itself but nothing was available on record to show that any of the three exceptions specified under Section 12(1) of the Act was existing -- Both the Courts below have not satisfied the requirement of provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act and without having any material on record, the bail application of the petitioner has been declined -- Impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such, are liable to be set aside -- Petitioner is directed to be released on bail.

(Para 10-13)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 141, 149 -- Unlawful assembly -- Common object – Ocular evidence – Injury co-relation – Requirement of -- In a case of a mob assault, especially when there is no doubt with regard to the ocular evidence, to look for corroboration of each injury by correlating it with the evidence of a prosecution witness to a particular accused and then to discredit the prosecution case on that basis cannot be upheld and is contrary to the principles of criminal jurisprudence regarding common object and the necessary ingredients for the same.

(Para 8)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 141, 149 -- Unlawful assembly -- Common object – Ocular evidence – Vicarious liability -- All the accused were well armed, they chased the deceased coupled with the assault on those who tried to come to the rescue of the deceased -- Fact that there may not be any firearm injury on the deceased is considered irrelevant for fixing vicarious liability as member of an unlawful assembly once the presence of the accused possessed of a weapon of assault chasing the deceased along with others stands established by reliable ocular evidence.

(Para 9)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 141, 149 -- Unlawful assembly -- Common object – Nature of -- Overt act – Requirement of -- Determinative factor is the assembly consisting of five or more persons fully armed and who entertained one or more of the common objects, as specified in Section 141 -- It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that unless an overt act is proved against a person, who is alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly, it cannot be said that he is a member of an assembly -- Word “object” means the purpose or design and, in order to make it “common”, it must be shared by all -- Sharing of common object is a mental attitude which is to be gathered from the act of a person and result thereof -- It is not necessary under law that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with an unlawful common object, the same must be translated into action or be successful.

(Para 10,11)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-A – Death by rash and negligent driving – Finding of – Requirement of -- Courts failed to record finding that the petitioner (convict) was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner resulting in death in motor vehicular accident -- Sine qua non for convicting an accused u/s 304-A IPC is that the convict has caused the death of any person by doing rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide -- In absence of such finding, the judgments passed by the Courts below suffer from perversity.

(Para 6)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-A – Death by rash and negligent driving – Application by I.O. to SMO saying the deceased was under the influence of liquor -- However, when Doctor was examined as PW2, she stated that she had not taken the blood sample of the deceased -- She also did not sent viscera of the deceased to the Chemical Examiner to verify the presence of alcohol in the stomach of the deceased – There is overwriting on Exhibit P-15 and P-16 -- First informant deposed that petitioner was arrested on 6.11.2009, whereas he was shown to be arrested on 9.11.2009 -- No dent on offending vehicle – Location of offending vehicle not shown on map – No police official was associated as witness though they were alleged to seen the incident – I.O. says vehicle was standing on extreme right side of divider, whereas accident was on extreme left side of dual carriageway – Held, prosecution failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt -- Petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt -- Revision accepted and the judgment of conviction passed by the ld. JMIC, affirmed in appeal are set aside.

(Para 6-7)