***

FERA -- Cognizance of offence -- Mandatory opportunity notice -- Service of an adequate and meaningful opportunity notice under the proviso to Section 61(2) is a mandatory statutory prerequisite for instituting a complaint under Section 56 or 57.

***

CrPC -- Section 482 vis-à-vis Section 397 -- In order to do substantive justice, the High Court can always treat and convert a petition filed under Section 482 as one under Section 397, and vice versa

***

Right to a speedy trial is an essential component of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21.

***

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 397 and 482 -- Inherent powers of High Court -- Maintainability of -- Quashing Petition -- Availability of an alternative remedy of revision under Section 397 of the CrPC does not, by itself, operate as a bar to the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC. -- Issuance of a summons is not an interlocutory order for the purposes of Section 397 -- The two provisions operate in distinct spheres, and the mere existence of a revisional remedy cannot be treated as ousting the jurisdiction preserved under Section 482, which is available wherever there is an abuse of the process of the court or where the ends of justice so require -- In order to do substantive justice, a High Court may always treat and convert a petition filed under Section 482 as one under Section 397, and vice versa, rather than non-suiting a party on a hyper-technical ground of maintainability.

(Paras 11, 13 and 14)

B. Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973), Sections 56(1), 57 and 61(2) proviso -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cognizance of offences -- Mandatory requirement of opportunity notice -- Principle of natural justice – Quashing of summoning order -- Under the proviso to Section 61(2)(ii), where the alleged contravention consists of doing an act without permission, no complaint shall be made unless the person accused of the offence has first been given an opportunity of showing that he had such permission -- Adherence to the principles of natural justice must be read into the statute -- Service of an opportunity notice is a mandatory requirement without which no complaint under Section 56 or 57 can validly be instituted, and no Magistrate can validly take cognizance -- This opportunity must be meaningful and adequate, and not a mere technical or notional compliance -- The burden lies upon the prosecution that such notice was issued and served --  Where the complainant neither stated the date of the opportunity notice nor placed a copy or proof of service on record and the Magistrate took cognizance in a mechanical manner without recording satisfaction of compliance with Section 61(2), the order taking cognizance and issuing summons cannot be sustained in law, liable to be quashed.

(Paras 16-23)

C. Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Right to speedy trial -- Protracted delay in trial -- Unexplained inaction by prosecution -- Quashing of proceedings -- The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is implicit in the fair, just, and reasonable procedure guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, extending to every stage of a criminal proceeding including investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, and revision -- Complaint was instituted in 2002 for a transaction dating back to 1991-1992 --The prosecution failed to collect summons for service for nearly two years -- Despite express time-bound directions from the High Court to conclude the trial within one month (later extended to six months), the complainant refused to collect notices and remained absent right up to the filing of the appeals -- Such persistent and unexplained inaction spanning over 23 years reflects a complete want of diligence -- Permitting the prosecution to continue in such circumstances would unjustly leave the accused in a state of suspended animation indefinitely -- Criminal complaint and summoning order quashed.

(Paras 25, 26, 30-35)

***

NDPS -- Bail involving commercial quantity -- Prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay in trial without fault of the accused -- The fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 dilutes the statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

***

Second/successive regular bail petition -- Maintainable in law -- Requires substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances to succeed.

***

Bail -- Criminal antecedents -- Involvement of the accused in other FIRs cannot be the sole ground to decline the concession of regular bail if a case is otherwise made out on the merits of the present FIR.

***

A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Maintainability of -- Second/successive regular bail petition -- A second/successive regular bail petition is maintainable in law whether the earlier petition was dismissed on merits, dismissed as withdrawn, dismissed as not pressed or dismissed for non-prosecution -- For the second/successive regular bail petition to succeed, the petitioner is required to show substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances.

(Para 6.1)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 15(c) and 37 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Bail in commercial quantity -- Delay in trial -- Petitioner was found in alleged possession of 70 Kgs. of poppy husk and had suffered incarceration for 01 year, 01 month and 21 days -- Charges had been framed, but none of the 29 prosecution witnesses had been examined -- Trial was procrastinating and folly thereof cannot be saddled upon the petitioner -- The right to a speedy and expeditious trial is an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 -- Where the trial has failed to conclude within a reasonable time, resulting in prolonged incarceration, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted -- Grant of bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity, on the ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act -- Bail granted.

(Paras 2, 6, 6.2, 6.3 and 7)

C. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Bail -- Criminal antecedents -- Petitioner was stated to be involved in three other FIRs -- The antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition -- However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail upon ratiocinating the facts and circumstances of the said FIR.

(Para 6.4)

***

Committal in complaint case -- Offence exclusively triable by Court of Session -- Section 244 has no application at pre-committal stage -- Magistrate is not required to record pre-charge evidence before committing case.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 209 & 244 -- Complaint case -- Committal of case -- Offence exclusively triable by Court of Session -- Recording of pre-charge evidence under Section 244 -- Not mandatory -- Magistrate is only required to comply with Sections 207/208 and commit the case under Section 209 -- Section 244 has no application at pre-committal stage -- Magistrate is not required to hold inquiry or record prosecution evidence before committing case to Court of Session -- High Court erred in remanding matter for compliance with Section 244 -- Impugned order set aside.

(Paras 6, 9-14)

***

Section 304 Part II IPC -- Sentence -- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Long lapse of time -- Period already undergone -- Conviction maintained -- Sentence modified.

***

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 304 & 34 -- Sentence -- Alteration of sentence – Conviction under Section 304/34 IPC for causing death during a sudden altercation by pushing the deceased into a dry canal -- Evidence disclosed that fatal injuries were sustained due to the fall into the rock-bed canal and not by the alleged stone blows -- Case fell under Part II of Section 304 IPC as the act was committed with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death -- Incident occurred in 1997 -- Appellant was over 60 years of age by the time of disposal of appeal and had already undergone imprisonment for more than one and a half years -- Considering the prolonged lapse of nearly three decades, age of the appellant and overall facts and circumstances, while maintaining the conviction, substantive sentence reduced to the period already undergone.

(Paras 11 to 18)

***

NI Act -- Suspension of sentence -- Deposit of 20% compensation -- Requirement not absolute -- Appellate Court must exercise judicial discretion and consider exceptional circumstances before imposing condition of deposit.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 148 -- Suspension of sentence -- Appeal against conviction under Section 138 -- Deposit of 20% of compensation -- Appellate Court directed appellant to deposit 20% of compensation while suspending sentence without examining whether the case fell within the exceptions recognised by the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of the High Court -- Requirement of deposit under Section 148 is not absolute and may be reduced below 20% or waived altogether in exceptional circumstances by assigning reasons -- Failure to exercise judicial discretion rendered the impugned order unsustainable -- Matter remanded to the Appellate Court for fresh consideration after affording opportunity to the appellant to establish exceptional circumstances warranting reduction or waiver of deposit.

(Paras 5 & 6)

***

Medical Negligence -- Summoning order under Section 304A IPC against doctor set aside for failure to await PGI Expert Report.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section, 223, 528 -- Quashing of summoning order -- Medical negligence -- Complaint alleging death due to negligent treatment -- District Medical Negligence Board comprising six doctors opining that treating doctor could not be held negligent -- Trial Court having directed obtaining of second expert opinion from PGI Chandigarh -- Summoning order passed without awaiting PGI report and without recalling earlier order directing procurement of expert opinion -- Procedure adopted by Trial Court held contrary to its own directions and settled norms of judicial discipline -- Summoning order under Section 304-A IPC quashed -- Trial Court directed to procure PGI report, consider the same along with other material on record and pass fresh order.

(Paras 16 to 24)

***

Speedy investigation – Right to -- Investigation cannot be permitted to remain pending indefinitely -- Constitutional Courts must intervene.

***

Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 193 -- Speedy investigation -- Complaint pending investigation for nearly two decades -- Constitutional Courts obligated to intervene in cases of inordinate investigative delay -- Missing records or inability to trace witnesses no ground to keep investigation pending indefinitely -- Investigating agency required to file appropriate report before Magistrate -- Pendency of investigation for years without chargesheet or closure report held unjustified -- State directed to conclude investigation within six weeks and file appropriate report along with affidavit explaining delay and action taken against delinquent officer.

(Paras 10-18)

***

Reserved judgments -- Constitutional guidelines issued -- Delay in pronouncement held to affect Article 21 rights and institutional credibility of justice delivery system.

***

Reserved judgments -- Judgment to be ordinarily pronounced within maximum period of 3 months from date of reservation.

***

Bail/ Suspension of sentence/ Acquittal -- Orders granting regular bail, suspending sentence, or acquitting a convict in custody should be communicated to the jail authorities and the Trial Court on the date it is pronounced.

***

Bail applications to be pronounced preferably on same day or next day if reserved and uploaded immediately -- Communication of orders to jail authorities and trial courts mandated -- Immediate release directed subject to compliance of conditions.

***

A. Constitution of India, Articles 21, 226 and 227 -- High Courts -- Reserved judgments -- Delay in pronouncement -- Held, right to life and personal liberty includes right to timely adjudication at all stages, including pronouncement of reserved judgments -- Undue delay undermines fairness of adjudicatory process and public confidence in judiciary -- Necessity of systemic reform emphasised.

(Paras 9–11, 18–21)

B. Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Supreme Court -- Binding directions -- High Courts -- Reserved judgments -- Comprehensive framework issued governing timelines, monitoring, transparency and accountability in pronouncement of judgments -- Directions declared binding across all High Courts.

(Paras 15–17)

C. High Courts -- Reserved judgments -- Timelines for pronouncement -- Judgment to be ordinarily pronounced within maximum period of 3 months from date of reservation -- Special expedition mandated in matters involving personal liberty.

(Para 16A(i))

D. Criminal law -- Bail, suspension of sentence, acquittal -- High Courts -- Personal liberty matters -- Bail applications to be pronounced preferably on same day or next day if reserved and uploaded immediately – Orders granting regular bail, suspending sentence, or acquitting a convict in custody should be communicated to the jail authorities and the Trial Court on the date it is pronounced.

(Para 16A(c)–(e))

E. High Courts -- Reserved judgments -- Administrative monitoring -- Monthly automated reporting of pending reserved judgments to Chief Justice mandated -- Registrar General to compile and forward list of delayed matters -- Administrative oversight by Chief Justice strengthened.

(Para 16A(ii)(a), 16B, 17)

F. High Courts -- Reserved judgments -- Supervisory mechanism -- If judgment not delivered within 3 months, matter to be placed before Chief Justice -- Direction to concerned Bench to pronounce judgment within stipulated time -- In exceptional cases, matter may be reassigned to another Bench for rehearing.

(Para 16A(ii)(c)–(d))

G. High Courts -- Transparency -- Website disclosure -- Mandatory display of reserved judgments pending beyond 3 months -- Separate disclosure of cases where operative order delivered but reasoned judgment pending -- Automated email/SMS alerts to advocates introduced.

(Para 16B)

H. High Courts -- Judgments -- Operative order and reasoned judgment -- Where operative part is pronounced, reasoned judgment to be uploaded within 7–15 days -- Delay beyond prescribed period triggers administrative review and litigant remedies.

(Para 16A(i)(i), 16A(ii)(e))

I. High Courts -- Remedies to litigants -- Delay in pronouncement -- If judgment not pronounced within 3 months, party entitled to file application for early pronouncement -- If delay persists, party may approach Chief Justice for re-assignment of matter to another Bench.

(Para 16A(iii))

J. Constitution of India, Article 142 -- High Courts -- Reserved judgments – Institutional reform directed to ensure timely pronouncement of judgments and judicial accountability.

(Paras 15–17)

***

Prevention of Corruption Act -- Mere recovery of tainted money without proof of demand and acceptance cannot sustain conviction, and presumption under Section 20 does not arise.

***

A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) & 20 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B -- Illegal gratification -- Demand and acceptance -- Criminal conspiracy -- Appeal against acquittal -- Respondents acquitted by High Court of offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B IPC -- Mere recovery of tainted money held insufficient in absence of proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification -- Presumption under Section 20 arises only after foundational facts of demand and acceptance are established -- Prosecution failed to prove criminal conspiracy as there was no cogent evidence of meeting of minds between accused -- Withholding of material electronic evidence justified adverse inference against prosecution -- High Court's appreciation of evidence held to be a plausible view warranting no interference under Article 136 of the Constitution -- Appeals dismissed.

(Paras 11 to 37)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B -- Conspiracy cannot be inferred merely on the basis of suspicion or association and that there must be cogent material indicating meeting of minds between the accused persons -- To establish a charge of conspiracy, knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary.

(Para 21)

***

Life imprisonment -- Modification of sentence -- Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC and having undergone 23 years, 6 months and 3 days of actual imprisonment -- Held, sentence modified to period already undergone.

***

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 53 and 45 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 433-A, 386 and 401 -- Murder -- Life imprisonment -- Modification of sentence -- Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC and having undergone 23 years, 6 months and 3 days of actual imprisonment -- Whether life sentence can be modified to a fixed-term sentence -- Held, life imprisonment ordinarily means imprisonment for the remainder of natural life subject to constitutional and statutory remission powers -- However, Supreme Court and High Courts are empowered to impose a modified or fixed-term sentence exceeding fourteen years and may convert life imprisonment into a specified term of incarceration -- Considering that appellant was about 21 years of age at the time of occurrence, incident was of the year 1998 and appellant had already undergone more than 23 years of actual imprisonment, sentence modified to period already undergone while maintaining conviction -- Appeal partly allowed.

(Paras 8 to 18)

***

Appeal against acquittal -- Reversal of acquittal -- Conviction by appellate court -- Sentencing -- Appellate court cannot remit matter to trial court for hearing on sentence and imposition of sentence after recording conviction.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 235(2), 386(a) -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Sections 258, 427 -- Appeal against acquittal -- High Court reversed acquittal and convicted appellant under Sections 376 and 312 IPC -- Instead of hearing appellant on question of sentence, High Court directed trial court to take appellant into custody and impose sentence after hearing him -- Permissibility of -- Appellate court convicting accused for first time after reversing acquittal is itself required to hear him on question of sentence and thereafter pass sentence according to law -- Judicial function of sentencing cannot be delegated to trial court -- Direction remitting matter to trial court for imposition of sentence set aside -- Matter remitted to High Court for hearing appellant on sentence and passing appropriate sentencing order.

(Paras 12 to 22)

***

Further investigation -- Third round of further investigation without leave of Magistrate -- Civil dispute given criminal colour -- Abuse of process of law -- FIR and chargesheet quashed.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173(8) -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 193(9) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 and 34 -- Further investigation -- Permission of Magistrate -- Requirement of -- Closure reports filed twice recording dispute to be civil in nature -- Third round of further investigation undertaken and chargesheet filed without obtaining leave of Magistrate -- Permissibility of -- Business dispute relating to alleged joint venture, investment and sharing of profits -- Allegations arising out of commercial relationship between parties -- No satisfactory explanation for delayed allegations of forgery -- Held, obtaining leave of Magistrate for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C./Section 193(9) BNSS is a necessary requirement -- Chargesheet founded on unauthorized further investigation unsustainable -- Dispute predominantly civil in nature and continuation of criminal proceedings amounted to abuse of process of law -- FIR, chargesheet and all consequential proceedings quashed.

(Paras 8 to 15)

***

Dishonour of cheque -- Vicarious liability -- Complaint must be read as a whole -- Participation in antecedent financial transactions and execution of documents constitutes sufficient foundation for prosecution under Section 141 N.I. Act -- Mere status as office-bearer, without specific role in transaction, insufficient to attract liability.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Sections 138, 141 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Dishonour of cheque -- Vicarious liability -- Society -- Office-bearers -- Quashing of complaint -- High Court quashed proceedings against Vice-President, Treasurer, Executive Member and Manager of borrowing Society on ground of absence of specific averments -- Complaint alleging respondents were in-charge of and responsible for affairs of Society -- MoU, promissory notes and allied financial documents showing participation of Vice-President, Treasurer and Manager in underlying borrowing transaction -- Treasurer also signatory to dishonoured cheque -- Complaint required to be read as a whole and not in isolated fragments -- Participation in antecedent financial transactions and execution of documents constituted sufficient foundational material for continuation of prosecution against Vice-President, Treasurer and Manager -- No specific role, document or material connecting Executive Member with transaction -- Mere status as office-bearer, without specific role in transaction, insufficient to attract liability -- Quashing set aside qua Vice-President, Treasurer and Manager and upheld qua Executive Member.

(Paras 27 to 43)

***

Compromise in criminal appeal -- Conviction under Sections 364, 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC -- Long pendency of about 22 years -- Parties settled dispute amicably and complainant not willing to pursue case -- Conviction affirmed but sentence reduced to period already undergone -- Fine maintained.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860), Sections 364, 323, 324 read with Section 34 -- Criminal appeal against conviction – Allegation of abduction and assault arising out of enmity -- Conviction upheld on merits -- During pendency of appeal, compromise arrived at between parties and report of CJM confirming settlement -- Complainant not interested in prosecution -- Custody already more than one year -- Considering long pendency of 22 years and period of custody already undergone, sentence modified to period already undergone while maintaining fine -- Appeal partly allowed.

(Paras 1–17)

***

Criminal medical negligence -- Anaesthetist giving telephonic post-operative pain management advice after duty hours cannot be held criminally liable for subsequent procedural lapse committed by staff nurse in administering injection -- Criminal proceedings quashed.

***

Criminal negligence -- In absence of direct proximate nexus between telephonic painkiller advice and death caused by acute coronary insufficiency due to 80% coronary blockage, criminal liability of appellant-anaesthetist not sustainable.
***

Medical negligence -- Constitution of expert panel without anaesthetist in case involving epidural anaesthesia rendered medical opinion unreliable and contrary to safeguards laid down in Jacob Mathew, (2005) 6 SCC 1 -- Criminal prosecution unsustainable.

***

Criminal proceedings and civil proceedings -- Exoneration in civil proceedings -- Appellant-doctor having been exonerated on merits by Consumer Forum and such finding attaining finality, continuation of criminal prosecution on identical allegations held abuse of process of law.

***

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-A -- Criminal medical negligence -- Rash and negligent act -- Degree of negligence -- Anaesthetist whose duty hours had concluded cannot be held criminally liable for a subsequent procedural error committed by a staff nurse -- Appellant merely suggested administration of painkiller over telephone, which constituted standard medical advice for post-operative pain management and not gross criminal recklessness -- Failure of nurse to accurately locate epidural space may at best amount to deficiency in service giving rise to civil liability, but lacked gross culpability or mens rea necessary to attract Section 304-A IPC -- Essential ingredients of criminal negligence absent -- Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Paras 19, 20, 24, 25)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-A -- Criminal negligence -- Proximate cause -- Requirement of direct nexus (causa causans) between negligent act and death -- Painkiller advised by petitioner over telephone -- Deceased found having asymptomatic 80% coronary artery blockage -- Medical evidence proving immediate cause of death to be acute coronary insufficiency resulting in heart attack -- Chain of causation too remote to fasten criminal liability upon appellant-anaesthetist -- Criminal prosecution unsustainable.

(Para 28)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Medical negligence -- Expert opinion – Requirement of independent competent medical opinion -- Case relating to administration of epidural anaesthesia -- Constitution of expert panel without anaesthetist -- Effect -- Absence of specialist in concerned branch rendered panel incompetent to evaluate technical nuances of epidural anaesthesia and catheter management -- Reliance on such flawed expert report contrary to safeguards laid down in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab -- Criminal prosecution unsustainable.

(Paras 26, 27)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Criminal proceedings and civil proceedings -- Exoneration in civil proceedings -- Effect -- Consumer Forum after detailed appreciation of evidence exonerating appellant-doctor from liability -- Finding attained finality qua the appellant -- Where exoneration on merits holds allegations wholly unsustainable, continuation of criminal prosecution on identical facts amounts to abuse of process of law.

(Paras 21 to 23)

***

Probate of Will -- Criminal investigation -- Testamentary jurisdiction -- High Court while exercising testamentary jurisdiction does not cease to be Constitutional Court possessing inherent and plenary powers and can exercise constitutional powers to protect estate.

***

Probate of Will -- Perjury -- Section 340 of the Code held applicable to all proceedings in all Courts in criminal cases or civil cases irrespective of fact whether matter involves offence mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C.

***

A. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Sections 247, 269, 300 -- Constitution of India, Article 215 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 340 -- Probate of Will -- Testamentary jurisdiction -- Administrator pendente lite -- Court-monitored investigation -- Jurisdiction of High Court -- Challenge to order of High Court directing court-monitored criminal investigation into affairs of deceased -- Primary function of Probate Court is to adjudicate execution and genuineness of Will -- However, High Court while exercising testamentary jurisdiction does not cease to be Constitutional Court possessing inherent and plenary powers -- If High Court notices glaring irregularities or element of mischief played by executor, it cannot remain silent spectator and can exercise plenary and constitutional powers to protect estate.

(Paras 29 to 41)

B. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Sections 247, 269, 300 -- Constitution of India, Article 215 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 340 -- Probate of Will -- Perjury -- Exercise of powers by High Court -- Under Section 340(3)(a), where Court making complaint is High Court, an officer of that Court may be appointed to make complaint -- Since High Court was exercising testamentary jurisdiction, it was permissible for officer of High Court registry to make complaint -- Object and scope of Section 340 is to institute enquiry and ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice has been committed in relation to any document produced or given in evidence in Court -- Section 340 of the Code held applicable to all proceedings in all Courts in criminal cases or civil cases irrespective of fact whether matter involves offence mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C.

(Para 41)

***

Anticipatory bail -- Allegations of caste-based abuse, harassment and threat to kill under BNS and SC/ST Act -- Alleged occurrence not in public view and caste status disputed -- No specific overt act attributed and no recovery required -- Bar under Section 18 SC/ST Act not attracted where prima facie ingredients not made out -- Anticipatory bail granted.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482(2) -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Sections 296, 299, 351(3), 109 -- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 18 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 -- Anticipatory bail – Offence under SC/ST Act and BNS -- Allegation that accused abused complainant in name of caste and threatened her -- Defence of false implication and caste dispute raised -- FIR contents show no clear public view occurrence -- Caste certificate dispute raised -- Held, Section 18 SC/ST Act not an absolute bar where prima facie ingredients of offence not made out -- No specific role or recovery attributed to petitioner -- Criminal antecedents alone not ground to deny bail -- Custodial interrogation not required -- Impugned order refusing anticipatory bail set aside -- Appellant directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS -- Appeal allowed.

(Paras 7-10)

***

Circumstantial evidence -- Murder -- Last seen together theory, extra-judicial confession and recoveries failed to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances linking accused to the murder -- Conviction set aside and accused acquitted.

***

Circumstantial evidence -- Last seen together theory -- Where time gap is large and possibility of intervening circumstances exists, last seen circumstance cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance against accused.

***

Extra-judicial confession -- Weak piece of evidence -- Exculpatory statement implicating co-accused and made while accused were detained by villagers lacks credibility and cannot form basis of conviction.

***

Recovery of weapon -- Recovery from an open and accessible place without proof of concealment does not satisfy requirements of Section 27.

***

Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Motive -- Absence of motive assumes significance where chain of circumstances is not complete and raises a reasonable doubt.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302 and 34 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Last seen together theory, extra-judicial confession and recoveries failed to constitute a complete chain of incriminating circumstances pointing only to guilt of accused -- Conviction set aside and accused acquitted.

(Paras 18 and 20)

B. Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Sections 3 and 114 -- Circumstantial evidence -- Last seen together theory -- Proximity between last seen circumstance and death is essential -- Where time gap is large and possibility of intervening circumstances exists, last seen circumstance cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance against accused.

(Paras 7 to 9)

C. Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Sections 24 and 30 -- Extra-judicial confession -- Weak piece of evidence -- Exculpatory statement absolving maker and implicating co-accused is inherently unreliable -- Alleged confession made while accused were detained by villagers under accusation of murder lacked credibility and could not form basis of conviction.

(Paras 10 and 11)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Recovery of weapon -- Concealment and knowledge of accused are crucial ingredients of discovery under Section 27 -- In absence of any statement regarding concealment, recoveries made from an open and accessible place do not qualify as recoveries under Section 27 -- Recoveries are of no avail.

(Paras 12 to 15)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Motive -- Though motive is not imperative where chain of circumstances is so complete as to establish only a hypothesis of guilt, absence of motive assumes significance where prosecution case raises a reasonable doubt.

(Para 17)

***

Legal aid – Criminal appeal – Amicus curiae -- Legal aid to an accused person must not be a mere ritual or a token formality -- Amicus had no opportunity to interact with appellant lodged in correctional home and appellant was not informed regarding arrangement made for his representation -- Directions regarding effective legal aid not complied with -- Impugned judgment set aside and appeal remanded to High Court for de novo hearing.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374(2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder -- Appeal against conviction -- Appellant remained in custody during pendency of appeal -- High Court appointed amicus curiae in absence of engaged counsel and dismissed appeal within six days of such appointment -- Amicus had no opportunity to interact with appellant lodged in correctional home and appellant was not informed regarding arrangement made for his representation -- Directions regarding effective legal aid and adequate opportunity to amicus not complied with -- Legal aid to an accused person must not be a mere ritual or a token formality, but a substantive and meaningful exercise that ensures effective assistance of counsel -- Impugned judgment set aside and appeal remanded to High Court for de novo hearing.

(Paras 10 to 15)

***

Quashing of FIR -- Criminal proceedings arising from civil property dispute -- Subsequent FIR containing improved allegations held to be abuse of process.

***

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 154(3), 156(3), 200 and 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 384, 504, 506, 511 and 114 – Quashing of proceedings -- Long-standing civil dispute relating to title over immovable property -- FIR lodged after about 8-9 years -- Earlier complaint lodged seven months prior did not contain allegations of extortion or criminal intimidation -- Subsequent FIR lodged introducing allegation of demand of Rs.1.5 crores -- Material improvements in later FIR showing attempt to give criminal colour to civil dispute -- Held, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law -- FIR and consequential proceedings liable to be quashed.

(Paras 38 to 40, 52 to 58)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 463, 464, 465, 467, 468 and 471 -- Forgery -- False document -- Execution of Power of Attorney by persons claiming share in ancestral property -- No allegation of forged signatures, impersonation or fabrication of document -- Mere claim of title subsequently found unsustainable not amounting to making of a "false document" -- Ingredients of forgery absent -- Offences under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC not made out.

(Paras 44 and 45)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Cheating -- Essential ingredients -- Deception, dishonest intention at inception and delivery of property -- No allegation that complainant delivered any property, money or valuable security pursuant to any inducement -- Section 420 IPC not attracted.

(Para 46)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 384, 504, 506 and 511 -- Extortion -- Criminal intimidation -- FIR not disclosing date, place or circumstances of alleged demand -- No allegation of delivery of property or money pursuant to threats -- Vague allegations regarding intimidation and insult -- Attempt to extort also not established -- Ingredients of offences absent.

(Paras 47 and 48)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B -- Criminal conspiracy -- Substantive offences themselves not made out -- Charge of conspiracy cannot survive independently -- Held, offence under Section 120-B IPC also not attracted.

(Para 49)

F. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Criminal antecedents of accused -- Relevance -- Criminal antecedents cannot constitute sole or primary ground to refuse quashing of proceedings -- Court required to examine whether essential ingredients of offences alleged are made out -- Reliance on antecedents by High Court held unsustainable.

(Para 50)

***

Public nuisance -- Illegal encroachment on public street -- Removal of unauthorized ramps and structures -- Maintainability of writ petition -- Efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 152 BNSS, 2023 -- Writ petition dismissed with liberty to avail statutory remedy.

***

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 152 -- Public nuisance -- Illegal encroachment on public street -- Petition seeking removal of unauthorized ramps, platforms and structures allegedly raised over public street by way of encroachment – State raised objection regarding availability of statutory remedy under Section 152 BNSS -- Petitioner unable to controvert said objection -- High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and relegated petitioner to avail remedy in accordance with law.

(Paras 1 to 4)

***

FIR against public servants -- Direction for registration of FIR under Section 4 of SC/ST Act without recommendation of administrative enquiry held unsustainable.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 4(2) Proviso and Section 4(3) -- Public servants -- Dereliction of duty -- Direction for registration of FIR -- Sessions Judge directing registration of FIR against Circle Officer and Station House Officer under Section 4 of SC/ST Act without recommendation of administrative enquiry -- Recommendation of administrative enquiry a condition precedent and mandatory safeguard for initiation of penal proceedings against public servants -- Continuation of proceedings in absence of compliance with statutory mandate amounting to abuse of process of law -- Impugned order directing registration of FIR under Section 4 of SC/ST Act set aside qua applicants in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(Paras 5 to 10)

***

Proclaimed offender -- Quashing of order -- Bail -- Petitioner residing in another State and unaware of pending proceedings -- Readiness of petitioner to join proceedings and face trial -- Order declaring petitioner proclaimed offender set aside subject to costs -- Court concerned directed to admit petitioner to bail subject to its satisfaction.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Proclaimed offender -- Quashing of order -- Petitioner declared proclaimed offender in case under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC -- Petitioner contended that he had gone to Gujarat for livelihood and was under impression that no proceedings were pending after compromise between parties -- Plea that provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. were not complied with and petitioner was never served through ordinary or substituted service -- Held, non-appearance of petitioner not intentional -- Petitioner ready to join proceedings and face trial -- Order declaring petitioner proclaimed offender set aside subject to deposit of costs of Rs.25,000/- -- Petitioner directed to appear before Court concerned within 10 days and file bail application along with receipt of costs -- Court concerned directed to admit petitioner to bail subject to its satisfaction -- Protection from arrest granted for 10 days.

(Paras 6 and 7)

***

Quashing of FIR -- Multiple proceedings -- Where FIR and complaint are founded on identical substratum of facts, continuation of parallel proceedings before different fora is impermissible and amounts to abuse of process.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 469, 505 -- Constitution of India, Articles 20(2) and 21 – Quashing of FIR – Multiple proceedings – Test of sameness – Abuse of process – Where FIR and complaint proceedings arise from the same substratum of facts, continuation of parallel proceedings is impermissible and amounts to abuse of process of law -- It is well settled that there cannot be multiple FIRs in respect of the same occurrence, and splitting of a single transaction by changing the nomenclature of offences is not permissible – Held, the substratum of allegations in the impugned FIR and the earlier complaint before the Ld. CJM, Srinagar, being identical and arising from the same alleged social media activity, continuation of the FIR is unsustainable -- FIR and consequential proceedings quashed.

(Paras 6, 14 to 22)

***

Defamation -- Truthful reporting/publication of an FIR cannot be criminalised merely because it affects the reputation of the person named therein.

***

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 499, 500 & 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Criminal defamation -- Quashing of complaint -- Publication of news item based on First Information Report (FIR) -- Complaint made to police protected under Eighth and Ninth Exceptions to Section 499 -- Accurate and fair publication of contents of FIR does not constitute defamation -- Joint complaint by two complainants arising from same cause of action maintainable -- Editor not a necessary party where reporter himself authored the impugned publication -- Contents of FIR made to police protected and publication thereof by newspaper also protected -- -- Complaint, summoning order and consequential proceedings quashed.

(Paras 13 to 25)

***

Cruelty and desertion -- Wife pursuing professional career and residing separately for welfare and upbringing of minor child -- Cannot be construed as cruelty or desertion.

***

Cruelty -- Wife opening dental clinic and pursuing career goals -- Mere pursuit of professional aspirations by qualified woman cannot amount to cruelty.

***

Perjury -- Matrimonial acrimony -- Allegations seeking prosecution of wife for false statements on oath -- Allegations appeared to be result of personal vendetta, anger and pent-up frustration -- Hyper-technical dissection of record insufficient to constitute offence of perjury or giving false evidence -- Petition dismissed.

***

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Sections 13, 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) -- Divorce -- Cruelty and desertion -- Wife pursuing professional career and residing separately for welfare and upbringing of minor child suffering from medical complications -- Family Court treated same as cruelty and desertion -- Held, approach of Courts below was pedantic, regressive, archaic and ultraconservative -- Marriage does not eclipse individuality of woman nor subjugate her identity under that of spouse -- Mere pursuit of professional career and responsible parenthood cannot amount to cruelty or desertion -- Findings regarding cruelty and desertion expunged -- Divorce decree maintained on ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

(Paras 3 to 32)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 195 and 340 -- Perjury -- Matrimonial acrimony -- Allegations seeking prosecution of wife for false statements on oath -- Allegations appeared to be result of personal vendetta, anger and pent-up frustration -- Hyper-technical dissection of material on record insufficient to disclose ingredients of offence of perjury or giving false evidence -- Concurrent findings rejecting application warranted no interference -- Petition dismissed.

(Paras 35 to 38)

***

Arrest of accused -- Direction -- Petitioner sought directions for arrest of accused persons and fair investigation -- Petition disposed of with direction to Senior Superintendent of Police to consider and decide representation within stipulated period in accordance with law.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Sections 91, 191(3), 190, 351(2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 315, 148, 149, 506 -- Direction for arrest and fair investigation -- Petition disposed of with direction to SSP to consider and decide representation within four weeks in accordance with law.

(Para 2 & 6)

***

Compromise after conviction – Acquittal -- Parties amicably settled dispute during pendency of revision petition -- High Court set aside conviction and sentence and acquitted petitioners.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 323, 325, 506, 149 -- Compromise after conviction -- Parties amicably settled dispute during pendency of revision petition -- Complainant and State had no objection to compounding of offences -- High Court exercising powers under Section 528 BNSS set aside conviction and sentence and acquitted petitioners, holding that offences were private in nature and continuation of proceedings would defeat ends of justice.

(Paras 7 to 10)

***

Bank account freeze – A citizen’s bank account cannot be frozen indefinitely merely on internal correspondence, portal alerts or informal electronic communications unless such action is traceable to authority of law

***

Constitution of India, Articles 14, 21 and 226 -- Bank account freeze -- Agricultural sale proceeds credited to account -- Debit freeze imposed on basis of NCCRP complaints and informal communications -- No statutory order of attachment, seizure or prohibition produced -- Mere existence of cyber fraud complaints not sufficient to justify indefinite denial of access to account -- Restriction on operation of bank account affecting right to livelihood and access to legitimate funds -- Even if prior notice may be dispensed with in emergent circumstances, post-decisional notice and disclosure of basic reasons necessary -- Continuation of debit freeze without furnishing material particulars, without authority of law and without periodic review violative of principles of natural justice -- Respondent bank directed to defreeze account within two weeks -- Liberty reserved to investigating agencies to act on fresh orders passed in accordance with law.

(Paras 5 to 11)

***

Illegal Detention -- Petitioner not named in FIR or Charge-sheet -- SIT/CB-CID Probe ordered into alleged illegal detention.

***

Constitution of India, Articles 21 and 226 -- Illegal detention and violation of personal liberty -- Petitioner not named in FIR, remand report or charge-sheet -- Certain police communications referring to petitioner lending prima facie support to claim that he was apprehended despite not being formally arrayed as an accused -- Disputed questions relating to coercive execution of GPA and seizure of documents not amenable to adjudication in writ jurisdiction -- Inconsistencies in respondents' version warranting independent and impartial investigation -- DGP directed to register crime and entrust investigation to SIT/CB-CID -- Investigation to be completed preferably within six months with periodical status reports before jurisdictional Magistrate.

(Paras 9 to 14)

***

Dowry harassment -- Cognizance under Section 319 Cr.P.C. -- General and omnibus allegations against sister-in-law (Jethani) -- Mere relationship with husband not sufficient to sustain cognizance in absence of specific allegations -- Cognizance quashed.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 498A, 406 & 323 -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961), Sections 4 & 6 -- Cognizance -- Matrimonial dispute -- Sister-in-law (Jethani) summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after police filed charge-sheet only against husband -- Petitioner residing separately and no material showing involvement in demand of dowry or matrimonial affairs -- Allegations against petitioner found to be general, vague and omnibus -- No specific overt act attributed showing cruelty, harassment or demand of dowry -- Mere relationship with husband not sufficient to prosecute in absence of specific allegations -- Order taking cognizance and revisional order quashed.

(Paras 9 to 13)

***

Mining Act – Ss. 21 & 22 -- Cognizance on police report impermissible -- Theft of minerals from State land constitutes distinct offence under IPC -- FIR quashed qua Mining Act offences but permitted to continue for offences under Ss. 379 and 120-B IPC.

***

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Sections 21 and 22 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 379 and 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of FIR -- Illegal mining -- Cognizance of offences under Mining Act cannot be taken on police report and requires complaint by authorised officer -- Theft of minor minerals from State land constitutes distinct and independent offence under IPC -- Disputed questions regarding validity of mining lease and correctness of demarcation cannot be examined in proceedings for quashing -- High Court cannot conduct mini-trial or appreciate evidence while exercising inherent jurisdiction -- FIR and proceedings under Mining Act quashed -- Proceedings for offences under Sections 379 and 120-B IPC allowed to continue.

(Paras 14-26)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 473, 482 -- Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Section 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 -- Insecticide Rules, 1971, Rule 27(5) -- Summoning order – Condonation of delay -- Non-speaking order – No satisfaction regarding prima facie case and no discussion of material on record – Limitation to be reckoned from date of receipt of report of Public Analyst – Complaint filed after considerable delay of several years – No application of mind to question of limitation or condonation of delay – Impugned order not sustainable – Matter remanded for fresh consideration with direction to pass speaking order after considering limitation and material on record.

(Paras 7 to 10)

***

Sanction for prosecution – Even if a public servant has exceeded his powers while discharging his official duties, Section 197 CrPC would come into play.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 197 – Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, Sections 342, 330, 34 – Sanction for prosecution of public servant – Police excess/ illegal custody – Complainant alleged that police officers including petitioner-SDPO kept him in illegal custody from 10.05.2005 to 01.06.2005 at different police stations and subjected him to third-degree torture causing serious injuries – Not only the acts which have been done by the public servant in exercise of his official duty but even the acts, which a public servant has done in purported exercise of official duty, would be covered under the protective umbrella of Section 197 CrPC, therefore, the test is whether there is a reasonable nexus between act done by public servant and his official duties -- Even if a public servant has exceeded his powers while discharging his official duties, Section 197 CrPC would come into play -- Section 197 CrPC, is a shield to the public servants, who cannot be removed from their services, without the sanction of the Govt. from their false and unwarranted prosecution, without a formal sanction to prosecute -- The idea is to protect them from any kind of harassment, at the hands of unscrupulous elements.

(Paras 15–21)

***

S. 351 BNSS/ S. 313 Cr.P.C. -- Failure to put vital incriminating circumstances including medical evidence of rape, DNA report and forensic evidence to accused -- Trial Court relying upon such material for conviction and award of death sentence -- Serious prejudice caused -- Conviction and sentence set aside -- Matter remanded to Trial Court from stage of recording statements of accused.

***

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Ss. 5 and 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376-AB and 302 -- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 351 -- POCSO offence and murder -- DNA report and forensic evidence -- Conviction based partly on DNA evidence matching victim's blood with articles recovered from accused -- Such incriminating material not put to accused during examination under S. 313 -- Reliance thereon held prejudicial.

(Paras 39-46)

B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 351 -- Examination of accused -- Must bring to notice of accused each material incriminating circumstance separately and intelligibly -- Omnibus and composite questions reproducing prosecution evidence do not satisfy statutory requirement.

(Paras 35-38, 44)

C. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 351 -- Circumstances not put to accused -- Resultant prejudice -- Irregularity held curable -- Conviction and sentence set aside -- Matter remanded for fresh examination of accused and decision afresh from that stage.

(Paras 46-47)

***

S. 319 Cr.P.C. -- Summoning as additional accused -- Petitioner named from inception with specific role of causing injuries on head with danda, duly corroborated by medical evidence -- Trial Court rightly exercised power u/s 319 -- Revision dismissed.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 -- Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. – Challenge to -- Petitioner and his brother have been named from the very beginning -- It has been alleged that brother was carrying a knife, while petitioner and 2/3 other boys came with sticks, batons etc. -- Even a specific role has been assigned to the petitioner that the petitioner was armed with danda (stick) in his hand and they all had attacked the deceased -- Even, the petitioner gave injuries on the head and face of the deceased with a danda (stick) and the said fact also finds corroboration from the medical evidence in the case -- Trial Court rightly ordered the summoning of the petitioner as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C – Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 7, 8)

***

Approver – Bail – Detention of an approver till conclusion of trial is not an absolute bar, and High Court in exercise of inherent powers can release the approver on bail in once he has made full disclosure and been examined as a witness.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 306(4)(b), 482 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 343(4)(b), 528 – Approver – Release on bail pending trial – Provisions of Section 306(4)(b) Cr.P.C. requiring that an approver “shall, unless he is already on bail, be detained in custody until the termination of the trial” do not operate as a blanket ban on his release – Provision is intended not to punish the approver but to protect him from possible indignation, rage and resentment of his associates and to prevent temptation of retracting from disclosure – Once an accused is tendered pardon and makes a full and true disclosure, he ceases to be an accused and becomes a witness for the prosecution – Custody of an approver is co-terminus with fulfilment of conditions of pardon – Section 306(4)(b) of the Code appears to be directory and not mandatory -- Such a person cannot invoke the provisions of Section 439 of the Code corresponding to Section 483 of BNSS -- Continued detention despite compliance with conditions of pardon may violate right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution – High Court in exercise of inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) can enlarge an approver on bail even before culmination of trial where exceptional and reasonable circumstances exist – Where approver has been examined as prosecution witness, stood by his earlier disclosure without contradiction and seeks enlargement voluntarily, he deserves to be released on bail subject to reasonable conditions – Impugned order set aside and petitioner-approver admitted to bail.

(Paras 12–21, 26, 27)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190 -- Summoning of accused – Procedure – Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course – It is not sufficient that the complainant merely produces two witnesses to support the allegations in the complaint to set the criminal law in motion – Order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect due application of mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto – Magistrate must carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and determine whether any offence is prima facie made out – Magistrate may also put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers so as to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations and then examine whether any offence is prima facie committed by any of the accused.

(Para 13)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Quashing of Complaint/ FIR – Inherent powers of High Court -- When an accused seeks quashing of either the FIR or criminal proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious or malicious, the Court is duty bound to examine the matter with greater care -- It will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not -- In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case, over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, and try to read in between the lines – Court is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation.

(Para 14)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190, 482 -- Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957), Section 63, 65, 65A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 387 -- Quashing of complaint/ summoning order --  Complaint only contains a bald and unsubstantiated allegations -- Statement of the complainant and witnesses (brother of the complainant) and (cousin of the complainant), do not identify any feature of the script allegedly copied -- Dispute Settlement Committee of SWA comprising experts found no similarity between the film and the script and dismissed the complaint -- Complainant and his witnesses concealed the aforesaid material fact and did not bring the same to the notice of the Court -- No material on record to prima facie conclude that there was any similarity between appellant’s film and complainant’s script – Summoning order held to be passed in mechanical manner and suffers from vice of non-application of mind -- Summoning order and complaint quashed.

(Para 16-20)

Minor offence under section 222 Cr.P.C. – Punishment for minor offence compare to charged offence -- Section 364 IPC cannot be treated as minor/cognate offence of Section 302 IPC -- Accused charged under Section 302 IPC cannot be convicted under Section 364 IPC in absence of specific charge.

***

Minor offence under section 222 Cr.P.C. – Minor offence not determined merely by lesser punishment -- Where two offences are cognate offences and main ingredients are common, offence carrying lesser sentence can be treated as minor offence vis-a-vis other offence.

***

Minor offence under section 222 Cr.P.C. – Composition of the offence under Section 304-B is vastly different from the offence of murder indicated under Section 302 IPC and hence the former cannot be regarded as a minor offence vis-a-vis the latter.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 364 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 221, 222 -- Conviction for offence not charged -- Minor offence -- Scope – Murder / Kidnapping or abduction in order to murder -- Accused charged for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC -- Trial Court acquitting accused of offence under Section 302 IPC but convicting under Section 364 IPC on finding that accused had taken deceased with him on pretext of watching movie -- Validity -- Offence under Section 364 IPC is separate and distinct offence and cannot be construed as minor/ cognate offence vis-a-vis Section 302 IPC -- Ingredients of both offences not common -- In absence of specific charge under Section 364 IPC, conviction thereunder caused prejudice to accused and violated fair trial norms -- No evidence of forceful taking away or abduction of deceased by accused -- High Court justified in setting aside conviction -- Appeal dismissed.

(Paras 8 to 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 222 -- Minor offence -- Interpretation -- Expression “minor offence” found in Section 222 is not defined under the Code, it can be discerned from the context which is not merely that the prescribed punishment is less than the major offence -- If the two offences are cognate offences and the main ingredients are common, the offence punishable with lesser sentence can be considered as a minor offence with reference to the other offence.

(Para 9)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 304B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 221, 222 -- Murder – Dowry death -- Composition of the offence under Section 304-B is vastly different from the offence of murder indicated under Section 302 IPC and hence the former cannot be regarded as a minor offence vis-a-vis the latter.

(Para 10)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 -- Summoning of additional accused -- Scope -- Allegations against the proposed accused are general and omnibus in nature -- Evidence sought to be relied, substantially corresponds to the material which had already been examined during investigation -- No new or compelling circumstance has emerged during trial which could justify the summoning of the proposed accused as additional accused -- Mere naming of a person by a witness in his deposition, without the support of strong and cogent evidence, cannot by itself justify the exercise of the extraordinary power u/s 319 Cr.P.C.

(Para 10, 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 -- Summoning of additional accused – Dowry death -- Proposed accused are relatives of the husband of the deceased and the allegations against them are general in nature – Courts are required to exercise caution and circumspection before summoning additional persons to face trial, particularly when the evidence does not disclose specific and convincing material against them.

(Para 12)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 -- Summoning of additional accused – Trial in the case has already reached its culmination and the entire prosecution evidence stands concluded -- At such an advanced stage of the proceedings, the summoning of additional accused can be justified only when the evidence on record unmistakably points towards their active and direct involvement in the commission of the offence -- In the absence of such compelling material, the extraordinary jurisdiction u/s 319 Cr.P.C. ought not to be exercised.

(Para 13, 14)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 144 – Maintenance -- Striking off defence -- Procedure -- Opportunity to file reply -- Family Court hastily strike off the defence after only two effective opportunities -- Previous order did not warn the petitioner that it was a last opportunity to file reply -- Interest of justice requires adjudication on merits -- Petitioner permitted to file a reply subject to a cost of Rs.5,000/-.

(Para 2-4)

***

Quashing of FIR -- Inherent powers of High Court -- Proceedings can be quashed where they are manifestly mala fide or instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance or private grudge, to prevent abuse of process of law and secure ends of justice.

***

Quashing of FIR -- Election speech -- Allegations of abusive remarks against Prime Minister of India -- Ingredients of Sections 125 of Representation of the People Act and 504 IPC not made out -- FIR and proceedings quashed.

***

A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 528 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Inherent powers of High Court – Quashing of FIR -- Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him/her due to private and personal grudge, High Court, while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC can proceed to quash the proceedings.

(Para 11)

B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 528 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 125 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 504 -- Quashing of FIR -- Allegations that petitioner made abusive remarks against Prime Minister of India during election speech and violated Model Code of Conduct -- Final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. contains vague and omnibus allegations without specific particulars of words used -- Held, ingredients of Section 125 R.P.C. Act not satisfied as there is no material showing promotion of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language -- Further held, essential ingredients of Section 504 IPC missing as no material to show intentional insult with intent or knowledge to provoke breach of public peace -- Complainant not the person allegedly provoked, allegations vague and unsupported by material evidence -- Powers under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 Cr.P.C. reiterated to be exercised to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice -- FIR and consequential proceedings held to be an abuse of process of law and quashed.

(Paras 18 to 24)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B  -- Quashing of FIR -- Forgery and Cheating – Premature Exercise of Jurisdiction – High Court quashed FIR alleging forgery while the investigation was ongoing and documents were pending examination by the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL) – Held: It is wholly unjustified for a High Court to quash an FIR at the threshold when the Investigating Agency is awaiting a handwriting expert’s report on disputed signatures – High Court glossed over vital aspects of investigation and prematurely concluded that ingredients of fraud were not made out –Prosecution of accused cannot be stifled when prima facie evidence of criminal misappropriation and falsification exists – Impugned order of the High Court set aside.

(Para 14-24)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 302 and 120-B -- Summoning of Additional Accused – Murder – Conspiracy -- Trial Court need not establish guilt or conduct a detailed credibility assessment at this stage -- Pre-trial scrutiny should not resemble a mini trial -- Oral evidence alone, if credible, may suffice – Trial Court overstepped the intended scope of pre-trial scrutiny -- Inconsistencies in the overall testimonies of witnesses is a matter of trial and not within the Court’s scope at the time of considering an application under section 319 CrPC -- Testimony, on oath, by 3 witnesses, including the complainant no less, is sufficient in the facts of the case to meet the strong and cogent evidence standard – Appeals allowed, persons who sought to be produced as additional accused are ordered to be produced.

(Para 9-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 202 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(x) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 506, 34 -- Enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. – Role of -- An inquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. was conducted and a report was submitted – Summoning order is completely silent on the material collected during the inquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and lacks any discussion of the essential ingredients of the offences alleged cannot be sustained being a non-speaking order passed without due application of mind -- Summoning of an accused is a serious matter and cannot be done in a mechanical manner and that absence of such indication amounts to non-application of mind – Summoning order set aside, matter remitted back to the learned trial Court for fresh consideration.

(Para 5-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45 – Cheque bounce complaint – Expert evidence – Specimen handwriting of stranger/ third party – Permissibility of – Persons whose specimen handwriting is sought are neither the complainant nor the accused in the proceedings and are only witnesses to the case – Being third parties to the litigation, the Court cannot direct them to give specimen handwriting -- Application rightly dismissed.

(Para 5-8, 11)

Scope of S. 528 BNSS -- Inherent powers u/s 528 BNSS are to be exercised sparingly and cannot be used unless the order reflects patent illegality or miscarriage of justice

A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Inherent power u/s 528 of BNSS -- Scope of – Cane be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice -- Jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution and interference is warranted only where the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, perversity or results in manifest miscarriage of justice -- Inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because another view is possible or to re-appreciate the factual aspects which have already been considered by the trial Court.

(Para 8)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Marking or exhibiting of a document does not dispense with the requirement of proving the same in accordance with law -- Party relying upon the document still carries the burden to establish its execution, authenticity and admissibility -- If such proof is not forthcoming, the Court is always competent to eschew the document from consideration at the stage of final adjudication.

(Para 10)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce complaint  – Evidence by attorney -- Once the attorney had been duly substituted to prosecute the complaint on behalf of the complainant and the complainant’s evidence was still continuing, the tendering of documents during the course of such evidence cannot be said to be wholly impermissible – Contention that the documents could not have been tendered by the Special Power of Attorney without prior permission of the Court does not merit acceptance -- Other party retains full liberty to challenge the admissibility, mode of proof and evidentiary value of such documents during cross-examination and at the stage of final arguments.

(Para 11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Summoning of handwriting and fingerprint expert -- Belated stage -- Power u/s 311 Cr.P.C. is of a very wide amplitude and can be exercised by the Court at any stage of inquiry or trial if the evidence sought to be adduced appears to be necessary for the just decision of the case -- Merely because the application was moved at a later stage of the trial would not by itself render the order illegal.

(Para 9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Summoning of handwriting and fingerprint expert – Government FSL report already on record – Effect -- Evidentiary value of such testimony would always remain subject to cross-examination and appreciation at the stage of final adjudication -- No prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner merely by permitting the examination of the said expert.

(Para 10)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Summoning u/s 311 Cr.P.C – No statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. earlier – Effect -- Proposed witness was not cited in the list of witnesses or that his statement was not recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be accepted as a ground to disallow the application -- Object of Section 311 Cr.P.C is to enable the Court to summon any person as a witness if his evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case -- Provision is not restricted only to those witnesses whose statements were recorded during investigation -- Trial Court, in its discretion, is competent to summon any such witness if the circumstances of the case so warrant.

(Para 11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 341, 323, 498-A, 34 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – General and omnibus allegations against in-laws -- High Court quashed proceedings against sister-in-law but declined similar relief to other in-laws – FIR disclosed that allegations against appellants and sister-in-law were identical – No specific overt act, date or place attributed to appellants – Mere allegation that appellants used to quarrel does not constitute ingredients of offences alleged – Applying different standards to similarly placed accused held erroneous – Where allegations against accused persons stand on identical footing, relief granted to one accused on ground of general and omnibus allegations must equally extend to others – Different standards cannot be applied -- Proceedings against appellants also quashed.

(Paras 7, 10, 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 341, 323, 498-A, 34 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Matrimonial dispute – Delay in lodging complaint – Counter-blast to divorce proceedings --  Marriage solemnised in July 2019 – Husband filed divorce petition in March 2021 – Criminal complaint against in-laws lodged in March 2022 – Though delay alone not sufficient ground for quashing, viewed in conjunction with the absence of any specific allegations attributable to them, the delay lends credence to the submission that the criminal complaint against the in-laws may have been instituted by way of a counter-blast to the divorce proceedings initiated by the husband -- When these two considerations are read together, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present appellants cannot be sustained.

(Para 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 323, 307, 289, 509, 34 -- Murder -- Regular Bail -- As per prosecution, the occurrence took place on the spur of the moment on a trivial issue -- It would be a moot point during the course of the Trial as to whether the offence made out is one under Section 302 IPC (Section 103 BNS, 2023) or Section 304 IPC (Section 105 BNS, 2023) -- Petitioner is a lady, a first-time offender, in custody since 21.03.2025 but none of the 23 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far -- Trial not likely to be concluded anytime soon – Bail allowed.

(Para 6, 7)