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

(Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 506, 148, 149 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 27 --  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- On the contention that petitioner has not been named in the FIR, his tower location was not found at the place of occurrence, specific injuries attracting Section 307 IPC attributed to the co-accused and there is nothing on record against the petitioner in the final report filed u/s 173 Cr.P.C. against the co-accused, interim protection was granted -- Petitioner joined the investigation, interim bail order confirmed.

(Para 5-7)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 -- Live-in relationship -- Life and liberty – Police protection -- Every person, more so, a major, has the right to live his / her life with a person of his / her choice -- Petitioner no.1 is not legally divorced from her spouse -- Without commenting upon the legality of the relationship, respondent no.2 directed to consider the representation and to assess the threat perception to the petitioners and after considering the same, respondent no.2 shall take appropriate action in accordance with law.

(Para 2, 9-13)

Public Gambling Act, 1867 (3 of 1867), Section 13(A) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (43 of 1978), Section 4, 5 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of FIR -- Dara Satta/ Gambling -- S.I. was not authorised to conduct the raid -- Petitioners being the authorised dealer/ a member of National Commodity and Derivatives Exchange Limited, so no offence u/s 4 & 5 of 1978, Act made out -- Ingredients u/s 420 IPC are completely missing – FIR, summoning order and subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 7)

Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Ad-valorem court fee – Rejection of plaint -- Suit for declaration challenging sale deed -- Plaintiff-petitioner is the executant of the registered sale deed -- Merely because the plaintiff-petitioner is not seeking possession would not entitle him from escaping from the rigors of affixing ad valorem court fee – Order directing plaintiff-petitioner to affix ad valorem court fee, upheld.

(Para 2, 7, 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 167(2) – Default bail – Non-furnishing of bail bonds – Cancellation of bail – Permissibility of -- Non-presentation of final report within the stipulated period creates an indefeasible right in favour of the petitioner and which cannot be extinguished by subsequent filing of the final report -- Indefeasible right could not be extinguished merely because the petitioner could not furnish his bail bonds.

(Para 6)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 – Arbitration award – Objections -- While dealing with a petition u/s 34 of the 1996 Act, the Court concerned does not sit in appeal over the arbitral award and may interfere on merits on the limited grounds provided in Section 34 (2)(b)(ii) of the 1996 Act, i.e. if the award is against the public policy of the India -- Interference in an arbitral award would not entail a review of the merits of the dispute and would be limited to situations, where the findings of the Arbitrator are arbitrary or perverse or when the conscience of the Court is shocked, or when the illegality is not trivial but goes to the root of the matter -- An arbitral award, however, may not be interfered with, if the view taken by the arbitrator is a possible view based on facts.

(Para 7)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34 – Arbitration award – No written response to claim -- Appellants did not submit any written response to the claim submitted by the respondent-HAFED and only made oral submissions – Arbitrator awarded the claim of recovery of Rs.26.01 lakh and accepted the claim in toto -- Arbitrator did not commit any illegality in doing so, especially, once the claim was not opposed in any manner and further, the respondent was able to prove its case through evidence of its District Manager.

(Para 9)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 106 – Notice – Termination of tenancy – Eviction suit as notice u/s 106 TP Act – When  eviction suit is filed under the general law in the State of Haryana, this in itself is a notice to quit -- No prior notice u/s 106 of the TP Act to quit is required to be given in order to get a decree of eviction against the tenant.

(Para 11)

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

(Para 6, 7)

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

(Para 9-11)

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

(Para 3, 13, 14)

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

(Para 10)

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

(Para 11)

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

(Para 11)

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

(Para 6, 7)

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

(Para 5-7)

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

(Para 11-14)

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

(Para 15, 16)

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

(Para 3, 15, 16)

A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 12 -- Contempt jurisdiction – Object of -- Purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law, since the respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined -- A strong message has to be sent to the society that the orders of the Court cannot be flouted.

(Para 13)

B. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 12 -- Court directed the Tree Officer and the Deputy Conservator of Forest to ensure that the trees are not fell or harmed in any manner -- Respondent No.2 cut the tree by presenting a forged permission letter for felling down the tree -- FIR under Sections 465/471/34 IPC lodged – Order passed by High Court violated -- Respondent No.2 held guilty of wilful disobedience of the Orders of High Court.

(Para 2, 7-14)

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), Section 1 -- Applicability to all religions -- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a measure of social justice applicable to each woman irrespective of religious affiliation or social background -- The same was enacted to safeguard the rights of the victims of ‘domestic violence’ in ‘domestic relationship’.

(Para 6)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 8(2) – Arbitration clause in agreement -- Notarised copy of original agreement – Certified copy -- Petitioner/defendant filed the certified copy of the original agreement duly attested by the Notary Public which in terms of the law cannot be said to be a not duly certified copy of the original agreement as required under the provision of the Act -- Mandatory requirement under the Act had been complied with.

(Para 12, 24)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 8 -- Arbitration clause in agreement – Suit for declaration, injunction and consequential reliefs – Temporary injunction – Civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff -- Refusal by Court to refer dispute on ground that the said clause applies only to dispute connected with agreement is not proper -- On fulfilment of the conditions of Section 8, no option is left to the court and the court has to refer the parties to arbitration -- When it prima facie satisfies that the arbitration clause is valid and has the effect of mutual consent of the parties to the contract the court is bound to refer the parties to arbitration on satisfying all other ingredients mandated u/s 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

(Para 13-22)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 8 – Arbitration clause – Refer to arbitration -- Following conditions must be satisfied:

(a) that there exists an arbitration agreement;

(b) that action has been brought to the court by one party to the arbitration agreement against the other party;

(c) that the subject-matter of the suit is same as the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement;

(d) that the other party before he submits his first statement of the substance of the dispute, moves the court for referring the parties to arbitration; and

(e) that along with the application the other party tenders the original arbitration agreement or duly certified copy thereof.

(Para 17)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 92 – Deficiency in deposit of decreetal amount -- Clerical or arithmetical mistake – Bar of 60 days – Applicability of – No bar created for 60 days in cases where the deficiency is due to clerical or arithmetical mistake -- The court has been given enabling power to extend the time -- Second part of sub-rule (2) does not provide that the outer limit for deposit is 60 days.

(Para 12-14)

A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 12 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Investment in partnership firm – Consumer complaint – Maintainability of -- Investment made by the complainant was for deriving benefit by getting an interest @ 18% per annum, therefore, it would be an investment for profit/gain -- It was a commercial transaction and therefore also would be outside the purview of the 1986 Act -- Commercial disputes cannot be decided in summary proceeding under the 1986 Act but the appropriate remedy for recovery of the said amount, if any, admissible to the complainant-respondent No.1, would be before the Civil Court -- Complaint was thus not maintainable.

(Para 7)

B. Partnership firm – Death of partner – Liability of Legal heirs -- Legal heirs of a deceased partner do not become liable for any liability of the firm upon the death of the partner.

(Para 8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22(c), 25, 37 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- NDPS Case – Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- Circumstances raises a finger of serious doubts for date and time of taking the petitioner into actual custody by the police, he was actually abducted from Delhi one day prior to showing his date of arrest, have come on record which needs to be examined by leading evidence before the trial Court – Petitioner has already incarcerated for a period of 01 year 05 months and 29 days in custody -- Petitioner not involved in any other offence -- Trial is bound to take long time -- Petitioner cannot be detained behind bars for an indefinite period -- Article 21 of the Constitution provides for a right to speedy trial even to an accused -- Judicial precedent is also to be borne in mind that “bail is a rule” and “jail is an exception” – Bail allowed.

(Para 16, 17)

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

(Para 10)

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

(Para 1, 5, 6)

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

(Para 5)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11, 16 – Appointment of Arbitrator – Scope of -- In exercise of powers u/s 11(4)(6) of the Act of 1996 the Court has only to prima-facie examine the case of the parties to arrive at a prima-facie satisfaction that the parties before the High Court (i) have approached the correct Court for getting an arbitrator appointed, (ii) the arbitration clause subsist between the parties and the disputes are covered by the said clause -- Impact of Section 62 of the Contract Act, tripartite agreement and whether the disputes relate to construction stage and or the effect of Section 12 of the NHAI Act, 1988 can be considered by the Tribunal appropriately in terms of Section 16 of the Act of 1996 -- Once the satisfaction is formed, the Court is required to relegate to the parties to Tribunal.

(Para 16, 17)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 55 – Appointment of Arbitrator -- Time barred claim -- Petitioner waited for more than 12 years for the respondent to construct building -- It would be an unnatural construction of Section 11 of the 1996 Act or so-called time-barred claims where a party with a bona fide and a genuine claim is left in the lurch on the defence of the claim being barred by limitation in spite of the parties being in constant communication with each other for settlement of the claims -- Article 55 to the Schedule of The Limitation Act contemplates continuing breach of a contract -- Respondent withholding the money without due compliance of the MoU and failing to return the money to the petitioner for several years on one pretext or the other cannot argue the point of limitation particularly after having nominated its Arbitrator.

(Para 10)

Service matter -- Stoppage of one annual increment – Limitation – Order of stoppage of one annual increment of the respondent with cumulative effect was passed on 19.12.1983, whereas suit for declaring the said order void abinitio, illegal, beyond the scope of rule of natural justice and the service rules was filed on 13.01.1990 i.e. after a period of more than six years, which is hopelessly time barred.

(Para 15)

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(xi) -- Offence under SC/ST Act – Intention -- Offence of outraging the modesty should be committed with the intention that the victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste category.

(Para 8)

B. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(xi) -- Offence under SC/ST Act – Prosecutrix/ complainant was engaged for doing household jobs in the house of the accused appellant who tried to outrage her modesty while the prosecutrix/ complainant was doing the household chores -- Offending act was not committed by the accused with the intention that he was doing so upon a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste – Appellant acquitted of the charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.

(Para 9-11)

A. Service matter -- Adhoc service -- Selection grade -- Adhoc service rendered by an employee cannot be taken into account for fixing his salary or grant of selection grade.

(Para 6)

B. Service matter -- Recovery from retired employee – Excess amount paid in view of judgments passed by Courts below – Setting aside of judgments – Effect of -- Recovery from the retired employee is covered under the category of hardship and has been made impermissible --  Respondent-plaintiff has already retired and is drawing pension as a pensioner -- Despite the fact the judgments of the Courts below have been set aside, the benefit already extended ordered not to be recovered.

(Para 9, 10)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Medical reimbursement – Treatment at unapproved hospital – After an accident, the petitioner went to Government Hospital from where he was referred to PGIMS Rohtak being in critical condition – Petitioner got shifted from PGIMS Rohtak to a private hospital because of want of ventilator, which was a lifesaving device – Petitioner was put on ventilator and his life was saved -- Legitimate rights of reimbursement cannot be defeated -- Respondent-Nigam directed to pay the balance of the medical reimbursement to the petitioner within a period of two months.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 120-B, 201 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder -- Regular bail -- Petitioner not named in the FIR but his name has been mentioned in the disclosure statement of co-accused -- Even during the course of the Trial the witnesses not properly identified the petitioner -- A co-accused though a juvenile treated as an adult has been granted the concession of bail -- Petitioner is otherwise a first time offender, in custody since 16.09.2021 and only 07 of the 35 Pws had been examined so far -- Trial is not likely to be concluded anytime soon – Bail allowed.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- Both the parties sustained injuries in the same incident -- Three persons sustained injuries from the side of accused/ petitioner party; whereas three persons sustained injuries on behalf of the complainant party – Section 307 IPC has been invoked in both the cases -- It will be a matter of trial, as to which of the party is aggressor – Petitioners ordered to be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer.

(Para 7-9)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Eviction of tenant – Arrears of rent -- Assessment of provisional rent – Extension of time – Death of tenant’s wife – Ground of -- Law is required to be interpreted in a manner which advances the cause of justice -- It cannot be interpreted in a manner which results in defeating it – Rent Controller assessed the provisional rent on 28.09.2022 and adjourned the case to 04.11.2022 permitting the tenant to pay the provisional rent -- Petitioner lost his wife on the intervening night of 04/05.11.2022 -- Revision petition allowed, impugned order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller affirmed by Appellate Authority set aside.

(Para 2-7)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973) , Section 13 -- Bonafide need of son – Availability of other vacant shops -- A landlord is the best judge of his needs -- Merely because there are other shops in the building which are available with the landlord-respondent would not dis-entitle him from filing an ejectment petition -- Nothing on the record to show that the son of the landlord-respondent was either employed or was doing any business – Revision against eviction dismissed.

(Para 8, 9)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Recovery of excess pensionary benefits – Undertaking by employee -- Rs.10,40,830/- was paid to the petitioner beyond her entitlement – Where there is an undertaking given allowing the authorities to recover the excess payment, the recovery of the excess amount paid can be done -- Where the pension has been rectified, the recovery is also permissible -- No ground for any interference qua the recovery of the amount – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 11, 15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 500, 501, 182, 183 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195 -- Discharge in rape case – Defamation -- Discharged by holding that there is no incriminating evidence  -- No finding that the petitioner had been falsely implicated on the basis of false statements and fabrication of evidence – No finding of any Court or any Investigating Officer that false statements had been made – For offence u/s 193 IPC, the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. were to be resorted to which had not been done -- Offence u/s 182 IPC is also not made out -- Even otherwise, the charge were framed -- No evidence of the filing of a false complaint to defame the petitioner – Dismissal of complaint upheld.

(Para 10, 11)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Abetment of suicide – Suicide note – In suicide note general allegation against the appellant and her family members (her father, mother and brother) that they are responsible for his suicide -- It is also stated therein that the local MLA had also given him a threat, and therefore, he committed suicide due to mental torture -- Taking the suicide note as it is, the same does not help the prosecution at all, especially when there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant was in touch with the deceased on the telephone or in any other manner -- Chargesheet quashed qua the appellant.

(Para 9, 12)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Abetment of suicide – Quashing of charge-sheet -- No act is attributed to the appellant proximate to the time of the suicide which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide -- Therefore, no offence is made out against the appellant – Chargesheet quashed qua the appellant.

(Para 11, 12)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Parity -- Grant of bail based on parity is not a claim of right -- Court is required to focus on the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration.

(Para 9)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 354, 389, 506, 120-B -- Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 67A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Anticipatory bail – Blackmailing -- Conspiracy -- Prime accused who is alleged to have initially conducted the blackmail, whom the complainant is said to have paid ‘hush-money’, has been granted bail and the role played by the appellant was only to further the alleged acts of her son -- She has not acted independently, to further aggravate the situation – Order granting anticipatory bail confirmed.

(Para 9, 10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 -- NDPS – Acquittal -- Delay in deposit of sample with FSL – Independent witness – Flaw in investigation -- Prosecution made a glaring omission in the investigation of the case by not complying with Standing Order No. 1 of 1988 dated 15.03.1988 -- As per the Standing Order, representative sample of any contraband after seizure and deposit in the Malkhana or with the concerned SHO is required to be sent to the FSL within 72 hours -- Samples were deposited with the FSL after the lapse of 18 days from seizure, which would tantamount to a serious flaw in the investigation and suffocate the prosecution case completely – Form no. 29 as well as the recovery memo were completed first followed by the preparation of the ruqa and it was recorded in the ruqa that the FIR be registered -- Recovery memo (Ex. P3) and Form no. 29 (Ex. P2) shows that they bear the FIR Number – It creates a serious dent in the story of the prosecution -- Another conspicuous omission on the part of the Investigating Officer was that the recovery memo (Ex.P3) did not bear the signature of the accused-appellant – No independent witness was joined in the investigation -- Appeal allowed, conviction and order of sentence set aside.

(Para 6-14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311, 397 – Allowing of application u/s 311 Cr.P.C – Interlucatory order – Maintainability of revision – Application for additional evidence – An order dismissing or allowing an application u/s 311 of Cr.P.C. is interlocutory in nature and a revision petition against the same is barred under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C.

(Para 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Recalling of witness for further cross-examination -- Petitioners intend to bring on record the fact with regard to death of father of petitioner no.2 and that the cheques in question were not signed by petitioner No.2 and to further cross-examine the complainant with regard to weighing machine slips -- Aforesaid aspects are necessary for the proper adjudication of the case -- Application filed by petitioners u/s 311 Cr.P.C. allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 182 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195, 482 -- Quashing of Kalandra u/s 182 IPC -- Complaint presented to the Superintendent of Police whereas the Kalandra has been presented by SHO concerned -- Kalandra initiated against the petitioner for offence punishable u/s 182 IPC cannot sustain as the same is hit by the bare provisions as contained u/s 195 of the Code -- Kalandra including all proceedings subsequent thereto quashed.

(Para 2-8)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 148, 149, 201 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder -- Regular bail -- Petitioner is behind the bars since 02.11.2022 and similarly situated co-accused granted the concession of regular -- Report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. filed on 19.01.2023 -- None out of 29 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far – Further detention, without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Bail allowed.

(Para 6-8)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail – Habitual offender -- Involvement of the petitioner in other cases would not be a ground to refuse grant of concession of regular bail.

(Para 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Abetment of suicide – Quashing of FIR -- Compromise -- Although, quashing of FIR has been sought on the basis of compromise, however, even on merits, perusal of the contents thereof if taken to be at their face value, offence u/s 306 IPC is not made – Parties having settled their dispute so as to live in peace in future, no useful purpose would be served by proceeding further with the criminal proceedings – FIR quashed.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Dowry case – Abetment of suicide -- Demand of money for business -- Plain reading of the oral evidence of the witnesses does not disclose any form of incessant cruelty or harassment on the part of the husband which would in ordinary circumstances drag the wife to commit suicide as if she was left with no other alternative -- Mere demand of money from the wife or her parents for running a business without anything more would not constitute cruelty or harassment.

(Para 11)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Abetment of suicide -- In order to convict a person u/s 306 of the IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence -- Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abetting the commission of suicide -- It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide -- The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous.

(Para 22)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113A -- Dowry case – Abetment of suicide – Presumption – Section requires proof (1) that her husband or relatives subjected her to cruelty and (2) that the married woman committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage – Section 113A the legislature has used the word ‘may’, whereas in Section 113B the word used is ‘shall’ – Mere fact that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption u/s 113A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply -- Presumption is discretionary -- It must take into account all the circumstances of the case which is an additional safeguard -- In the absence of any cogent evidence of harassment or cruelty, an accused cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 306 of IPC by raising presumption under Section 113A.

(Para 23-33)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 – Suit for specific performance of the MoU – Territorial jurisdiction -- Suit property is situated in Sehore, Madhya Pradesh -- Petitioner’s reliance on the cause of action arising in Calcutta due to the MoU being executed at Calcutta is completely erroneous --- Suit can be initiated where the defendant resides or cause of action arises is a residuary provision only applicable to cases beyond those in Section 15 to 19 of CPC.

(Para 6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Powers for directing further investigation regardless of the stage of investigation are extremely wide -- This can be done even if the chargesheet has been submitted by the prosecuting agency.

(Para 14)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306, 302 -- Apparently there seems to be no reason for a young girl of 25 years of age to commit suicide -- Prima facie it does not seem to be a case of suicide -- Crime scene shows that blood was spattered on the floor and the bed sheet was completely drenched in blood -- It appears to be a homicidal death and therefore the culprits must be apprehended – Case needs to be handed over to CBI – CBI to submit its complete investigation report or charge sheet before the concerned court as expeditiously as possible.

(Para 11-17)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Regular bail -- Respondent no.2 involved in heinous crime where murder of the son of the appellant-complainant had taken place -- Respondent no.2 was not named in the FIR, however, when the matter was investigated in detail, the police could gather evidence pointing out involvement of the respondent no.2 in crime -- Material collected was discussed in detail by the Sessions Judge while rejecting the bail application of the respondent no.2, however, the High Court merely noticing the arguments raised primarily by the counsel for the respondent no.2 has directed for his release on bail, which cannot be legally sustained -- Appeal  allowed -- Respondent no.2 granted three weeks' time to surrender.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 – Bail – Principles -- Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception -- This principle finds its roots in one of the most distinguished fundamental rights, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Though the underlying objective behind detention of a person is to ensure easy availability of an accused for trial, without any inconvenience, however, in case the presence of an accused can be secured otherwise, then detention is not compulsory -- Right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained person -- However, while deciding application for regular bail, the Courts shall also take into consideration the fundamental precept of criminal jurisprudence, which is “the presumption of innocence”, besides the gravity of offence(s) involved.

(Para 6, 7)

B. Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 29 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Since the appellant is facing trial only for commission of offence punishable under Section 29 of the Arms Act, therefore, without going into the details of allegations, appeal accepted – Neither the appellant has been nominated as an accused in the FIR, nor any specific role has been attributed to him, rather he has been nominated as accused on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused -- Maximum sentence prescribed for commission of offence u/s 29 of the Arms Act is three years, and, the appellant has already undergone actual custody of approx. 11 months and 11 days, therefore, keeping the appellant behind bars would serve no fruitful purpose – No criminal antecedents – Bail allowed.

(Para 10,11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 256, 378 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 465 – Protest petition -- Dismissed for want of complainant – Acquittal of accused – Respondent no.1-accused was summoned to face trial under Section 465 of IPC -- Despite levelling serious allegations, the applicant did not seem to be interested in pursuing the complaint filed by her -- Notice was sent to the applicant at the address mentioned by her in the complaint  multiple times but were received back with reports that the applicant had stopped residing at the address provided and her house had remained locked for many days – Protest petition dismissed by Trial court -- Applicant-appellant failed to point out any perversity or illegality in findings recorded by the learned trial Court which warrants interference -- Leave to appeal denied.

(Para 2-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 326, 506, 148, 149 --- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Grievous hurt – Regular bail – Petitioner was arrested on 28.11.2023 and is in custody since then – Challan u/s 173 Cr.P.C has presented against the petitioner -- Trial Court may take considerable time in concluding the trial and no purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars – Bail allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 324, 341 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Attempt to murder – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Considering the offence for which the accused have been charged are not of serious nature, together with the fact that compromise will go a long way in ironing out the differences for betterment of future life of the parties, petition for quashing the FIR is allowed qua the petitioner.

(Para 6)