Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 386, 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 469, 471 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Cheating – Extortion -- Regular bail -- Allegations against the petitioner are based upon the disclosure statement – He is in custody for the last 5 months and 22 days -- Although, he is involved in one more case, but has already been allowed bail -- Out of 14 witnesses cited by the prosecution, not even a single witness has been examined so far and thus, trial is likely to take long time to conclude -- The case is triable by Magistrate – Bail allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused – Procedure of -- Section 319 of Cr.P.C. becomes applicable, when during the trial after the filing of the challan and framing of the charge-sheet, evidence is presented indicating the involvement of a person, who was not initially charged by the police -- If the evidence establishes the person's complicity, the court may proceed to include them in the proceedings -- To apply Section 319 CrPC, evidence led should be such that it shows more than a prima facie case as is exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.

(Para 11)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 341, 506, 379, 379-B, 356, 201, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Snatching case -- Summoning of additional accused – As per the FIR version, the attribution to the petitioner is that he had caught hold of the petitioner -- Main accused and other assailants are attributed to be armed with weapons and having caused injuries -- There is no such attribution to the petitioner -- Apart from above, the FIR has already been quashed qua the main accused -- Merely on the basis of statement of PW1 made during trial, the trial Court was at fault in holding that there was more than a prima facie case so as to summon the petitioner -- Impugned summoning order set aside.

(Para 12-15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 482 – Murder – Summoning of additional accused – Quashing of summoning order -- Not being an eye-witness, PW-1’s deposition is not sufficient enough to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction u/s 319 to summon the appellants -- No other witnesses deposed against the appellants -- No documentary evidence – No role attributed to the appellants -- Deposition of PW-1 is in line and consistent with her statement u/s 161 -- Higher degree of satisfaction required for exercising power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is not met – Held, Trial Court committed a serious error in issuing summons to the appellants -- High Court should have quashed the order – Appeal allowed, impugned order/ judgment set aside.

(Para 23-26)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 104 – Accused at abroad – Proclaimed person -- At the time of issuance of proclamation u/s 82 of the Cr.P.C., the trial Court was fully conscious of the fact that the petitioner has gone abroad -- Trial Court at the first instance should have proceeded u/s 105 of the Cr.P.C. for effecting service upon the petitioner through German Consulate -- Date of appearance was short of 30 days statutory period -- Still further, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person on date, which was not fixed for appearance – Held, declaration of petitioner as proclaimed person was wholly in violation of the statutory mandate laid down u/s 82 read with Section 105 Cr.P.C thereof – Petition allowed, impugned order set aside.

(Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 182, 199, 201, 203, 211 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 27 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195, 482 -- Quashing of Challan/ Charge-sheet – Petitioner/ Complainant charge-sheeted in his own FIR -- Petitioner filed private complaint in which preliminary evidence has already been recorded – Not proper for the Investigating Agency to file the challan against the petitioner to prosecute him in the FIR, which was lodged on his own complaint instead of filing the cancellation report -- By not filing the cancellation report, petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to file protest petition -- Challan and Charge-sheet quashed.

(Para 11-19)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Parole for own engagement and marriage ceremony -- Petition allowed, petitioner granted parole for a period of two weeks.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Abetment to suicide – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- Uttering words “go and hang yourself” – Whether abetment – No -- Sole accused, husband of the lady with whom the deceased had certain relationship and had blunt out his anger and had uttered words ‘go and hang yourself’ cannot mean that it would become the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC for it to become an offence u/s 306 of the IPC – Reason for the deceased to commit suicide may be myriad, one of which could be the factum of him having illicit relationship with the wife of the petitioner, despite being the Father and Priest of a Church -- Charge sheet filed -- Such cases should be nipped in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. – Proceedings pending before the Principal District & Sessions Judge quashed.

(Para 14-15)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 391 -- Additional evidence at Appellate stage -- Certified copy issued by Private Bank -- Application for bringing on record the certified copy issued by the private bank -- Certified copy issued by the private bank is not per-se admissible, rather the same is required to be proved by way of evidence -- In the absence of any prayer for proving such document, even if application is allowed, such document would not be admissible as an evidence -- Application dismissed.

(Para 6, 7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 – Cheque bounce complaint – Transfer of case -- Agreement executed at Pune, petitioner/accused is resident of Pune -- Cheques which were dishonoured are also issued on Bank at Pune -- In the agreement, the jurisdictional clause provide that the Court where the bank has provided loan facility will have a jurisdiction to entertain dispute between the parties -- Cheque was presented in the respondent’s Branch at Calcutta – Entire cause of action has arisen at Pune and only in order to harass the petitioner the complaints have been filed at Calcutta by manipulating the jurisdiction – Complaint transferred from Calcutta to Pune.

(Para 6-11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 256 -- Acquittal/ Dismissal of complaint for want of prosecution -- Power of the Magistrate u/s 256 Cr.P.C to acquit an accused should be exercised judicially, based on a definite conclusion that the complainant no longer desires to prosecute the complaint -- Judicious course would be to direct the complainant to appear for the hearing, if it is imperative, and decide whether the drastic step of acquittal is to be passed in case he fails to appear.

(Para 15)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 256, 378(4) -- Cheque bounce complaint – Absence of complainant -- Dismissed for want of  prosecution -- Neither the complainant was present for trial nor any order directing complainant to remain present was passed on the earlier occasion – Ld. Magistrate ought to have adjourned the complaint to a later date directing the complainant to positively remain present on the next date -- Held, learned Magistrate was not justified in straight away dismissing the complaint and ordering acquittal of the accused respondents on mere non-appearance of the complainant -- Impugned order quashed and set aside -- Proceedings restored to its original number.

(Para 18-20)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Additional accused – Summoning -- Discretionary power is extraordinary and must be exercised judiciously only when compelling reasons exist to take cognizance against these individuals -- While summoning an individual, a prima facie case against him/her should be discernible which would reasonably lead to his/her conviction -- Evidence must be stronger than mere probability of complicity -- Trial Court is obligated to adopt a rigorous standard of appraisal of evidence, ensuring that the material on record could reasonably lead to the conviction of a person sought to be summoned.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Additional accused – Summoning – Alibi -- Contention that it had come during investigation that the petitioner was not present at the time of the alleged occurrence cannot be a ground for the learned Trial Court to not summon a person as an additional accused u/s 319 of the Cr.P.C. -- Right of an accused to present his evidence of alibi would always be available to him during trial.

(Para 10)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Punjab Act 1 of 1914), Section 61 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451, 482 -- Excise matter -- Superdari of vehicle – Onerous condition – Permissibility of – Superdari order with the condition that petitioner shall furnish sapurdari bonds in sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, along with cash security or bank guarantee of equal amount -- Condition imposed upon the petitioner, is an onerous condition, and therefore, the same is required to be modified -- Petitioner ordered to  furnish personal bond in sum of Rs.1.5 lac, and also additional security bond of the same amount.

(Para 2, 6, 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 205, 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 469, 471, 180, 120-B -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 23 -- Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 67B -- POCSO -- Permanent exemption from personal appearance – Charges framed on 14.07.2023 and only 5 PWs out of 15, have been examined so far – Personal appearance of the petitioners before the learned trial Court exempted subject to conditions.

(Para 6, 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 201, 202, 302, 341, 34 – Murder case -- Superdari of vehicle -- If the vehicle remains parked in the police station for a considerable period of time, it would become unfit for being plying on the road as keeping it parked in the sun and rain could damage its tyres, colour, machinery, battery as also interiors of the vehicle -- Value of the vehicle would also diminish in such a situation – Petition allowed, vehicle ordered to be released to the petitioner/registered owner on superdari.

(Para 8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157 – Excise matter – Cognizable offence -- Search and seizure without FIR -- There are two kinds of FIRs namely, the FIR can be registered by the informant which was duly signed by him -- Secondly, the FIR can be registered by the police officer himself on any information received by him -- In both the cases, the information should be reduced into writing and thereafter, the investigation must be carried out -- Ex.P1 being a panchanama, it cannot be termed as a complaint -- FIR cannot be registered on the basis of panchanama.

(Para 15, 16)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157 – Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (21 of 1966), Section 32, 34, 38-A -- Excise matter – Cognizance by court -- Search and seizure without FIR – FIR based on panchnama – Void abinitio – Acquittal – Respondent registered the FIR on the basis of panchanama which is erroneous and not proper – Trial Court ought not to have acted upon such FIR and cognizance should not have been taken on the strength of the said FIR – When the registration of FIR itself is void abinitio, the subsequent proceedings including the judgments are liable to be set aside – Revision allowed, judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside – Petitioners acquitted.

(Para 3, 15, 16)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 186, 353 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195 -- Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty -- Cognizance of – Court cannot take cognizance of an offence committed u/s 186 IPC without there being a complaint made by the concerned public servant, but there is no such requirement for offence u/s 353 CrPC -- Section 195 Cr. PC does not bar the trial of the accused person for a distinct offence, disclosed by the same set of facts but which is not within the ambit of that section.

(Para 11-15)

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 3 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B, 153-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Offence under UAPA – Regular bail -- Secessionist slogans painted on the walls of College and School – Petitioner not named in the FIR, arraigned as an accused on the statement of co-accused in another case -- Recovery of paint, clothes and mobile phone effected from the appellant in connection with the investigation in another FIR, no recovery made from him in the instant case -- No material to indicate that any monetary transactions had taken place and that the appellant had used a particular mobile phone for recording the incident and sending it to other accused -- Appellant in custody for 01 year and 09 months – Challan filed but charges are yet to be framed, prosecution cited 14 witnesses, therefore, the conclusion of trial would take some time – Bail allowed.

(Para 5-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 36A(4) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) -- NDPS case – Default bail -- Extension of time for investigation for another 180 days – Report of Public prosecutor – Requirement of -- Application for extension reveals that it was prepared by the Investigating Officer and forwarded by the Public Prosecutor, with no report submitted by the Public Prosecutor as per the mandate of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act -- Held, there has thus, been a failure to adhere to the requirements outlined in section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act -- Order of the trial Court granting extension of time to the investigating agency for completing investigation was erroneous -- Consequently, the impugned order set aside -- As a sequel to the above, since the investigation remained incomplete on the day application u/s 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner, he deserves to be enlarged on default bail – Default bail allowed.

(Para 11-14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Acquittal -- Leave to appeal -- Ordinarily, the order of acquittal will not be interfered with, merely because another view is possible -- Upon passing the order of acquittal, presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets reinforced and strengthened.

(Para 10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Proprietorship Firm as party – Requirement of -- Neither it is the case of the petitioner/ accused that the amount in question had been advanced as loan to the firm nor the cross-examination of the complainant suggest any such stand of the petitioner -- Firm in question is a sole proprietorship firm of the petitioner/ accused and, as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner would not be responsible for the affairs of the said firm – Guilt of the petitioner/ accused upheld.

(Para 9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 482 -- Transit anticipatory bail – FIR in another State -- Court of Sessions or the High Court as the case may be can exercise jurisdiction and entertain a plea for limited anticipatory bail/ transit bail by way of interim protection for a limited duration even if the FIR has not been filed within its territorial jurisdiction -- FIR registered at Hyderabad City -- Petition disposed of with the directions that the arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed for a period of 15 days to enable him to file an appropriate petition for the grant of anticipatory bail before the appropriate Court at Hyderabad in the State of Telangana.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Foreign citizen -- Absconding -- Proclamation -- Petitioner was resident of UK since 1988 i.e. well before the relevant FIR was filed -- According to Section 82, a proclamation may be issued against an individual by the Court if it is reasonably believed that the person for whom a warrant has been issued has absconded or is hiding, making it impossible for the warrant to be carried out -- A person cannot be said to be “abscond” or “evade” the execution of warrant when he had gone to a distant place before the issue of the warrant.

(Para 6, 7)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Foreign citizen – Proclaimed person -- Petitioner is a resident of UK and has been a citizen of UK since the year 1988 i.e. 28 years – Petitioner has been shown to be a resident of Village in District Hoshiarpur but for all intents and purposes, the residence of the petitioner was in UK, therefore, there was no occasion for him to evade the process of law intentionally, as he was never served in accordance with law – Thus the proclamation order is in gross violation of Section 82 Cr.P.C – Impugned order vide which the petitioner has been declared proclaimed person, is bad in law and not sustainable, set aside.

(Para 9-11)

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Section 21, 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Mining offence – Quashing of FIR -- Registration of the FIR is bad in the eyes of law, as cognizance of an offence under the MMDR Act can only be taken upon a criminal complaint -- MMDR Act is a special statute provisions regarding procedure must be adopted, general provisions of the IPC or the Cr.P.C. will not be attracted -- FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 6-12)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29(1) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- No effective steps taken to conclude the trial -- Petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2022 and is in custody since then -- Bail declined, the Special Judge directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously and preferably within six months.

(Para 5, 7)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheating -- Forgery – Quashing of FIR -- Information under RTI Act – Signature on application alleged to be forged -- No provision under the RTI Act or Rules made thereunder to file a complaint against an applicant, who sought any information under the said Act -- No loss of property or valuable security has been caused to the complainant, who is an official working under the DITS -- He had no locus standi to lodge prosecution against the petitioner(s) -- FIR ought to have been filed by SK, whose signatures are alleged to have been forged -- FIR and all subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 3, 13, 14)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 415, 463, 464 -- Cheating – Forgery – Essential ingredients for commission of offence of cheating are deception and inducement to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property – There must be an intention to induce a person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and the act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property – Further, to attract ingredients of forgery, there must be making of a false document or false electronic record with an intention to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person.

(Para 10)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 467, 468, 471 -- Forgery -- Making of the false document is sine qua non for launching prosecution u/s 467, 468, 471 IPC.

(Para 11)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 467, 468, 471 -- Forgery -- Ingredients of forgery are attracted; if a person (i) made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; (ii) materially altered or tampered a document; (iii) procured a document by deception from a person, who is not in control of his senses.

(Para 11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 -- Transfer of cheque bounce complaint -- Several complaint cases u/s 138 of the N.I. Act are pending in the Court at Gurugram, Haryana and it is a solitary case which was instituted in the Court at Dwarka – Parties to the proceedings are residents of Gurugram and the witnesses are also hailing from Gurugram – Complaint transferred from Dwarka Court, New Delhi to the Court of the Gurugram, Haryana.

(Para 3-6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 202 – Accused residing beyond jurisdiction – Enquiry before summoning -- Enquiry with respect to Section 202 CrPC can be conducted by the Magistrate himself – It is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process has to be issued or not -- Neither there was any requirement to join the accused nor it is required that all the witnesses shall be examined.

(Para 4, 6, 6.1)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 202 – Accused residing beyond jurisdiction – Enquiry before summoning -- Process issued after the complainant examined as many as six witnesses including himself and a handwriting expert after considering the documents brought on record by the complainant and the documents/ reports brought on record by the handwriting expert -- Requirement of enquiry substantially complied with.

(Para 4, 6.2)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Handwriting expert -- Defence set up by the petitioner/ accused is that the cheque in question had been issued not for the purpose of returning any loan, but for the purpose of making a donation to a Saint -- Mere fact that the body writing on the cheque in question is not of the accused or of the complainant and is in the hand of some 3rd person, would not have any bearing either on the case of the complainant or on the defence plea being set up by the accused – Application for examining Handwriting expert dismissed.

(Para 1, 5, 6)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Handwriting expert -- Accused would be required to prima facie show that the witness sought to be examined does have a relevance with the defence plea sought to be substantiated by the accused or has a potential to demolish the case of the complainant.

(Para 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(2), 13(1)(e) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 109 – Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 8(3) – Suspension of conviction/ sentence -- High Court overturned the acquittal and has convicted the appellant for three years – Appellant who is a MLA will incur disqualification as a result of the conviction -- High Court has not considered the main question whether the view taken by the Special Court was a possible view -- Conviction and sentence suspended. Afjal Ansari’s case (2024) 2 SCC 187 relied.

(Para 2-6)

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 – Basic ingredients – Requirement of -- Submission that complaint does not contain date of presentation of cheque before the bank, the date of return of the cheque as unpaid from the bank, the date of issuing mandatory notice within 30 days and the date of service of such notice on the drawee – Held, complaint cannot proceed u/s 138 of the N.I. Act without the basic ingredients being mentioned therein – Proceedings of Complaint case quashed.

(Para 2, 5, 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 18, 29, 67 – NDPS Case – Acquittal -- Confessional statement – Reliance upon -- Witnesses turned hostile, appellant was convicted and sentenced by taking recourse to Section 67 of the NDPS Act – Impugned order set aside, appellant acquitted of all the charges. Balwinder Singh (Binda)’s case (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1213 relied.

(Para 1-3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323 -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 4 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4 – Appeal against acquittal – Duty of Appellate Court -- Limitation -- Trial Court acquitted the appellants -- Sessions Court convicted the appellants, however, granted a relief of probation -- High Court has not gone into the question, whether the Sessions Court was aware of the limitations of the appeal against acquittal -- 3 prosecution witnesses and 7 defence witnesses have been examined, there is not even a reference to the depositions of the said witnesses in the impugned judgment -- Impugned order set aside, matter  remanded for fresh consideration by the High Court.

(Para 3-5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Cheque bounce case -- Appeal against conviction -- Suspension of sentence – Pre-condition of deposit of 20% of compensation amount -- Appellate Court required to consider whether the case falls in the exception or not -- Appellate Court directed to re-examine the case.

(Para 4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174A – Settlement in cheque bounce complaint – Proclaimed person -- Quashing o FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Proceedings under the N.I. Act culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the complaint – F.I.R. u/s 174-A of IPC along with all subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 11-13)

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (104 of 1956), Section 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Objectionable position at Spa Centre – Quashing of FIR – For the past 4½ years, none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined and the petitioner is facing the agony of prolonged trial – Owner as well as the Manager of the Spa against whom specific allegation was levelled, have been exonerated by the Investigating Agency – Petitioner at best was found in the objectionable position with one of the girls working in the said spa – No offence u/s 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the 1956 Act read with section 120-B IPC made out – FIR and all the subsequent proceedings quashed qua the petitioner.

(Para 5-7)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Legally enforceable liability -- Loan -- Money lending licence – Requirement of -- Complainant was involved in money-lending business without possessing any valid license -- Respondent/ accused used to borrow money from him -- Claim of the applicant/ complainant against the respondent is an unenforceable claim and thus, cannot be considered a legally enforceable liability u/s 138 of the NI Act.

(Para 4)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Acquittal by Trial court – Leave to appeal -- Power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of acquittal on the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence is subject to the settled law that where two views are possible and out of the two, one points towards the innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail over the other pointing towards his guilt.

(Para 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 204 -- Complaint – Dismiss in default – Permissibility of -- Before issuance of process u/s 204 of Cr.P.C. the complaint cannot be dismissed in default for non-prosecution due to the non-appearance of the complainant.

(Para 6-8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 406 -- Transfer of cheque bounce complaint -- Proprietor of the Complainant Company is working at Mumbai -- Yet the cheque was presented before the Bank at Darbhanga which led to the proceeding u/s 138 of the Act initiated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, Bihar -- Just because the respondent/ complainant who is a permanent resident of Darbhanga or has business interest in Bihar, may not justify filing of a case in another Court when all the transactions were in Mumbai -- Project site is at Maharashtra -- Complaint transferred to Mumbai.

(Para 4-8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Appellant was a mere employee, apart from being a lady, and was not the main accused -- Main accused was the sole proprietor, the allegations are primarily against him, who is no more -- No purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings against the appellant -- Impugned orders are set aside.

(Para 2-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(wa), 372, 377 -- Appeal by victim for enhancement of sentence – Maintainability of -- Right of petitioner/ victim to prefer an appeal against an order of the criminal Court are in the following three cases only i.e.,

1. Acquittal of the accused person;

2. Conviction of the accused person for a lesser offence; and

3. Imposition of inadequate compensation.

No appeal by the victim against the adequacy of sentence awarded is envisaged by the Criminal Procedure Code -- Only the State Government is empowered u/s 377 of Cr.P.C. to prefer an appeal against the adequacy of the sentence awarded and seek enhancement of the same – Appeal by petitioner/ victim not maintainable.

(Para 6-8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing of – Resignation of Director – Effect of -- Whether a appellant/ Director who has resigned from such position and which fact stands recorded in the books as per the relevant rules and statutory provisions, can be held liable for certain negotiable instruments, failing realization – Complainant not placed any materials on record indicating complicity of the appellants in the alleged crime -- Appellants had no role in the issuance of the instrument -- After the appellants have severed their ties with the Respondent-Company and, therefore, can in no way be responsible for the conduct of business at the relevant time – All criminal proceedings pertaining to the appellants arising out of the complaints filed by the respondent quashed.

(Para 2-11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Regular bail -- Speedy trial -- “Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception” -- Right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained person -- However, while deciding application for regular bail, the Courts shall also take into consideration the fundamental precept of criminal jurisprudence, which is “the presumption of innocence”, besides the gravity of offence(s) involved.

(Para 8)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 18 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 377, 511 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – POCSO -- Attempt to unnatural offence -- Regular bail -- Petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case -- Statement of victim (minor child), recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C, does not support the case of prosecution -- No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars, who has faced incarceration of about 07 months and 10 days -- Trial is not likely to conclude anytime soon – Bail allowed.

(Para 1, 12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311, 397, 401 – Summoning of material witness u/s 311 Cr.P.C. – Maintainability of revision – The highest Court of the land has unequivocally ruled on the non-maintainability of a revision petition against an interlocutory order passed u/s 311 Cr.P.C. – Disregarding or revisiting a judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court would undermine the integrity of the legal system and erode the foundation of justice itself – Revision petitions dismissed, being not maintainable.

(Para 1, 9-11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(a), 22 -- NDPS case – Recovery of unbranded loose capsules -- Out of 1130 capsules, two samples of 10 capsules each were separated and therefrom only one sample was sent to FSL -- As per report of FSL, 648 mg of “Dextropropoxyphene Napsylate”, was found in each capsule -- Entire recovery could not have been presumed to have contained the salt of “Dextropropoxyphene Napsylate” -- Ld. Special judge convicted the respondent/ accused for sentence already undergone of 06 months & 02 days besides imposition of fine of Rs.3000/- and in case of default, RI for 15 days -- No illegality or perversity – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 7-9)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 18, 25, 29 -- NDPS case -- Summoning of call details -- High Court directed all Courts in the State of Rajasthan that whenever an application is moved to summon the Call-details by the accused during the criminal proceedings, the same shall not be deferred and will be decided forthwith -- Accused cannot invoke and would not have right to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing of charge -- Impugned order set aside.

(Para 2, 7, 8)

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Section 21 (1) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Mining case – Anticipatory bail -- On the contention that petitioner has already obtained all requisite permissions including the registration certificate from the competent authority, no mining material has been recovered at the spot, involved in the case on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, FIR indicates that no offence under Section 379 of IPC and Act, 1957 is a special statute that provides a complete mechanism for dealing with any violation of the Act and Section 379 of the IPC was added in the FIR only to make the offence non-bailable, which is in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner was admitted to interim bail -- Petitioner has joined the investigation and is no more required for custodial interrogation – Interim order made absolute.

(Para 1-4)

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (14 of 1981), Section 33A, 49  -- Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974), Section 33A, 43 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 --  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(d), 4(2), 482 -- Quashing of FIR -- Offence for Water and Air pollution and Section 188 of IPC – Criminal complaint – Section 33A of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the provisions of Indian Penal Code are expressly excluded -- Statutory scheme under Act, 1974 and Act, 1981 provides that the prosecution under them can only be launched by way of a complaint case an FIR cannot be registered under the provisions of the same – Held, impugned FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are void ab initio and are liable to be quashed -- FIR quashed.

(Para 6-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 307 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Murder – Anticipatory bail -- No documentary evidence or allegations leveled in the FIR that the petitioner at the time of alleged occurrence had instigated the main accused, or even provided the weapon of offence -- Only his presence at the time of alleged occurrence had been shown and that too, in the supplementary statement after two days of the alleged occurrence – Anticipatory bail allowed.

(Para 1, 6, 7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397, 482 – Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Enhancement of compensation u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- Jurisdiction of High Court -- Revision against conviction -- Complainant filed an application u/s 482 of the Code primarily seeking enhancement of compensation – No jurisdictional error on the part of the High Court in passing the order after entertaining the application u/s 482 of the Code.

(Para 2, 3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder of husband – Regular bail -- Petitioner was arrested on 01.04.2021 and is in custody since then -- Out of 13, 4 witnesses, who are private and vital witnesses, have been examined -- Taking into consideration the period already spent by the petitioner in custody, coupled with the fact that she is required to take care of her three minor children, however, without expressing any views on the merits of the case, bail granted.

(Para 4, 5)