***

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)

***

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)

***

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)

***

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)

***

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)

***

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)

***

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)

A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482, 483(3) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306, 34 -- Cancellation of bail -- Abetment of suicide – Anticipatory bail by learned Sessions Judge – Allegations are primarily based upon the suicide note and the version of the complainant, which are matters to be examined during the course of investigation and trial -- At this stage, it cannot be said that the learned Sessions Judge has ignored any material fact or considered irrelevant material while granting anticipatory bail to the private respondents -- Mere fact that the respondents are also involved in another FIR, by itself, cannot be treated as a sufficient ground for cancellation of the concession of bail already granted.

(Para 8)

B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482, 483(3) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306, 34 -- Cancellation of bail -- Abetment of suicide – Anticipatory bail by learned Sessions Judge – Parameters for cancellation of bail are different and much stricter than those applicable for grant of bail -- Once bail has been granted, the same can be cancelled only if the order granting bail suffers from patent illegality or if the accused has misused the concession by interfering with the investigation, influencing witnesses, or otherwise obstructing the course of justice – Except for a bald allegation that the respondents are extending threats, no specific material has been placed on record to substantiate such assertion – No material to show that the impugned order suffers from serious infirmity or that the private respondents have misused the concession of anticipatory bail – No justification to exercise powers u/s 483(3) of the BNSS for cancellation of bail --  Petition dismissed.

(Para 8)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 480(5), 528 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Jump of bail – Cancellation of bail -- Non-bailable warrants -- Learned trial Court, while cancelling bail, straight away proceeded to issue non-bailable warrants – Held, cancellation of bail orders amounts to an unjustifiable restriction on the procedural rights of the petitioner in the absence of any misconduct, lack of bona fides, or a deliberate attempt to evade the proceedings on his behalf -- Issuance of non-bailable warrants must not be exercised in a mechanical manner and the same must be adopted sparingly and only upon the recording of cogent reasons reflecting the necessity of adopting such a stringent course -- Petitioner-accused himself come forward to face trial -- Petition allowed, impugned order set aside.

(Para 7-9)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 187(3), 193 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 -- Default bail -- Challan report without FSL report – Held, mere non-filing of the FSL report along with the police report does not render the challan incomplete so as to confer an indefeasible right of default bail upon the accused -- The FSL report, being a piece of corroborative evidence, can be filed subsequently by way of supplementary challan and its absence at the initial stage does not vitiate the prosecution or revive the right to default bail.

(Para 6)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 497, 503 – Superdari in mining case – Seizure of truck load with sand -- Superdari subject to condition of deposit of 30% of the total amount of fine/penalty -- Condition of 30% of the total amount of fine/penalty is modified to the extent that the petitioner would furnish a personal bond together with an undertaking that he will not transfer the vehicle till conclusion of the trial and produce the same as and when required, in connection with the aforesaid FIR.

(Para 2-7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 468, 469, 473 -- Limitation for taking cognizance – Misbranded drug complaint – Where identity of accused emerges during investigation, limitation begins from the date when identity of offender becomes known u/s 469(1)(c) Cr.P.C. – Complaint filed within three years from such date held within limitation.

(Para 26-36)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 202 – Complaint by Public servant -- Magistrate is not required to examine the complainant and the witnesses, if a public servant is acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty or a Court has made the complaint -- An official complaint was made on authorisation by the State Government -- In this factual setting, Section 202 of the Code would necessarily have to be construed harmoniously with Section 200 of the Code when considering postponement of the issue of process.

(Para 40)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200 – Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), Section 17(b)(c), 18(a)(i), 27(d) -- Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, Rule 96  -- Misbranded drug complaint – High Court’s quashed the complaint -- Respondents-Directors were in the accused-Company’s management, whether or not, they were ‘in charge of’ and ‘responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company’ are questions of fact -- These questions are best left to be determined by the Trial Court, at the appropriate stage -- Impugned Judgment, set aside.

(Para 58, 59)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 (2)(n), 506 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Rape on false promise of marriage -- Consensual relationship -- Quashing of FIR -- Complainant, a married woman and mother of two children, employed in a massage parlour and in charge of running the same, had a physical relationship with the appellant who visited the parlour as a customer – Relationship commenced in August 2023 and continued till March 2024 – Complainant informed appellant of pregnancy on 15.03.2024 – FIR lodged after appellant’s marriage on 12.03.2024 alleging rape on promise of marriage – No allegation that she was divorced from her husband or even separated from him – Held, there was a consensual relationship, neither inducement nor threat and no possibility of a deception luring the complainant into a physical relationship on the pretext of marriage – Even if FSL report establishes paternity, consent demolishes allegation of rape on promise of marriage – Order of High Court refusing to quash proceedings set aside and FIR quashed.

(Para 7 to 9)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 210, 413 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190(1)(a), 372 – Complaint/ Protest petition – Offence u/ss 306, 506, 34 IPC -- Dismissal of complaint without summoning – Remedy of Appeal/ Revision – High Court sent the matter to Ld. Sessions Judge to treat the revision petition as an appeal filed u/s 372 of Cr.P.C -- He/she shall either decide the appeal himself/herself or entrust the same to appropriate Court for its disposal.

(Para 2, 7-9)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 430 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37, 50, 52A – NDPS – Appeal against conviction – Suspension of sentence -- Judicial Magistrate who issued the certificate u/s 52-A was not made a witness -- Gazetted Officer was not produced during trial -- As the prosecution is unable to show that the said 80 packets seized by them during raid were properly classified weighed and sampled and as the said drugs appear to have been mixed up without the order of the competent authority -- Rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act cannot stand in the way in view of such materials on record in favour of the appellants – Sentence suspended.

(Para 18-20)

A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 348, 438(2), 528 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311, 397(2), 482 – Dismissal of application u/s 311 CR.P.C/ 348 BNSS – Maintainability of revision -- Ordinarily revision not maintainable being an interlocutory order – What is explicitly barred, cannot be granted backdoor entry by invoking inherent powers -- But this bar on the inherent powers is subject to a rider, whereby the High Court must examine if any gross injustice has been done -- If interlocutory order caused gross injustice, it would not only be justified for the High Court, but also it would be a duty of the High Court to invoke inherent powers and prevent injustice.

(Para 4)

B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 348 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Cross-examination of witness – Closing of same -- Duty of Trial court – Amicus curiae/ legal aid should have been given --  Petitioners/ accused filed an application u/s 311 CrPC, explaining the reason for inability of the defence counsel to appear -- Although, learned trial court was not convinced, even then, the learned trial court could have invoked the power on its own to ensure no injustice was caused – It is not just the accused who suffers injustice, it is the entire trial gets vitiated -- Presence of legal assistance for the accused facing a trial is the core element of fair trial -- Court should either appoint an amicus curiae or should direct the local legal services authority to send some legal aid counsel -- In the name of expeditious trial, fairness of the trial cannot be allowed to become a casualty – Matter remanded back to trial court.

(Para 7, 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintenance to wife/ child – Education of wife will not come in way to claim maintenance – No evidence to establish that the revisionist No.1/ wife is presently employed or earning -- Mere fact that she is a post graduate and has done ITI Diploma in tailoring by itself cannot lead to the conclusion that revisionist No.1/wife is working for gain -- Revisionist No.1/ wife staying at her parental home and taking care of her child without any financial or emotional support from the opposite party No.2/husband -- Complete responsibility of meeting the daily need, education and medical expenses of a minor child lies upon both the parents -- Held that both the revisionist No.1/ wife as well as the minor son are equally entitled to maintenance from the opposite party No.2 and he is legally liable to maintain both his wife and minor son – Matter remanded back to the learned Family Court for fresh determination of maintenance.

(Para 15-18)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 415, 425 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 384 – Criminal appeal against conviction – Dismissed in default – Permissibility of -- Dismissal of Criminal Appeal in default on account of absence of learned counsel for the appellant is contrary to law and is not in consonance with Section 425 of the B.N.S.S. (corresponding to Section 384 Cr.P.C.) -- Criminal Appeal restored to its original number.

(Para 6-9)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused -- While invoking power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. trial court should consider the statements of the witnesses adduced before it and it should not place reliance upon the material available in the charge-sheet or the case diary.

(Para 16)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning of additional accused -- While passing the summoning order u/s 319 Cr.P.C. court must consider whether more than prima-facie case is made out, or not -- Mere prima-facie case is not sufficient -- It is to analyze, whether before the trial court material was sufficient to summon the revisionists u/s 319 Cr.P.C. or not.

(Para 17)

***

Criminal Appeal against Acquittal -- Hostile prosecutrix -- Prosecution evidence insufficient -- Truncated trial justified -- No perversity in acquittal.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 161, 164, 378 -- Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 67 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376-D, 509, 506, 120-B, 201 -- Appeal against acquittal -- Truncated trial -- Sexual assault case -- Prosecutrix turned hostile and categorically denied rape, stating allegations were based on mistaken belief regarding fake photographs/videos -- No credible material to support charge under Section 67 IT Act as FSL report uncorroborated and electronic evidence not proved – Alleged relationship found to be consensual on record – Trial Court truncated proceedings and acquitted accused holding further trial would be an empty formality – Prosecution evidence is wholly insufficient  -- Acquittal based on appreciation of evidence calls for no interference – Acquittal upheld.

(Paras 9-20)