Inquiry – “Every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a magistrate or court” refers to the pre-trial inquiry. (Pritish Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 174 (S.C.)
Criminal lawyer in Mumbai high court-Inquiry – Trial – Inquiry is defined by section 2 (g) as ‘every inquiry, other than a trial’ – Trial not defined – Trial is clearly distinguishable from inquiry – Trial is distinct from inquiry and inquiry must always be a forerunner to the trial. (Moly & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 514 (S.C.)
Trial and enquiry – Distinction – Trial is distinct from inquiry and inquiry must always be a forerunner to the trial. (Vidyadharan Vs State of Kerala) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 516 (S.C.)
“Investigation” – It includes all the proceedings under the Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf – It ends with the formation of the opinion as to whether on the material collected, there is a case to place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and if so, taking the necessary steps for the same by filing of a charge-sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Union of India Vs Prakash P.Hinduja & Anr.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 205 (S.C.)
Court holding trial at Jail premises – Such place not notified by High Court as place of sitting of Court – Held, in special circumstances Court of Session can hold trial at a place other than the one notified by the High Court. (Abdul Latif Vs Central Bureau of Investigation) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 234 (P&H)
Appointment and renewal of term of Public Prosecutor – Professional in nature and is not a civil post – Satisfaction regarding the performance of a prosecutor is a question between the State and its counsel – Courts cannot interfere with the decision – Extension of the term of the office is not legal right as a case of renewal of a license. (State of U.P. & Anr. Vs Johri Mal) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 374 (S.C.)
Legal Remembrancer Manual – Is not a law – It contains only executive instructions – Name not recommended by the District Magistrate and the incumbent relieved from service – Challenged by way of a writ – High Court ordered to reconsider the matter – Wrong allegations made in the writ petition that the District Judge had recommended his name – Held that High Court based its decision on wrong premises – High Court has no jurisdiction to make an order for reconsideration. (State of U.P. & Anr. Vs Johri Mal) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 374 (S.C.)
Two cases registered on basis of rival versions of same incident – One case triable exclusively by Court of Sessions and other not involving any such offence – In such situation, both cases be committed to Court of Sessions for simultaneous trial, as Court of Sessions has jurisdiction to try any offence under Indian Penal Code. (K.M.Ganesha & Anr. Vs State by Station House Officer, Madikeri, Kodagu District) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 381 (Karnataka)
Two cases registered on basis of rival versions of same incident – One case triable exclusively by Court of Sessions and other not involving any such offence – Such cross cases to be tried by same Judge and judgment in both cases must be pronounced on same day in order to avoid conflicting decisions regrading same incident – In deciding each case evidence recorded in a particular case to be relied upon and evidence recorded in cross-case cannot be looked into. (K.M.Ganesha & Anr. Vs State by Station House Officer, Madikeri, Kodagu District) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 381 (Karnataka)
Arrest – Police Officer should justify the arrest apart from his power to do so – To arrest is one thing and justification for the exercise of it is quote another – No arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest – A person is not to be arrested merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence – There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified – Except in heinous offences, arrest must be avoided if police officer issues notice to a person to attend the Station House and not leave station without permission would do. (Dinkarrao Rajarampant Pole Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 627 (Bombay)
Person moving in suspicious circumstances – Police to conduct an investigation after taking him into custody – If found without an intention to commit an offence he should be released – If found committed bailable offence he should be released on bail – Detention in police station for more than 24 hours without producing before Magistrate is illegal – No prior permission of Court is required to prosecute the police official who has misused his powers for detaining a person without any authority and without any substance in his allegations. (S.Subbaiah Vs Narasiah) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 266 (A.P.)
Police can seek permission to remove an accused from judicial custody to police custody for completion of investigation. (Vaman Narayan Ghiya Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 08 (Rajasthan)
Blood sample – Paternity of child – Medical examination of accused for deciding paternity of accused sought by prosecution – Report of Chemical Analyser indicating blood groups of prosecutrix and accused – There was no attempt by him to find out as to whether the child begotten by the prosecutrix was child of the accused – Prosecution had examined all material witnesses and closed case for recording statement of accused – By itself not a ground for rejection of permission for medical examination of accused for deciding paternity of child. (State of Maharashtra Vs Ranjit) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 589 (Bombay)
Blood sample – Taking of sample of blood of accused for comparison is permissible and thereby accused does not become witness within meaning of Article 20(3) of Constitution. (State of Maharashtra Vs Ranjit) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 589 (Bombay)
Medical examination – ‘Person arrested’ includes arrested person released on bail – Permission for medical examination of person arrested extends to arrested person released on bail. (H.M.Prakash alias Dali Vs State of Karnataka) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 322 (Karnataka)
D.N.A. test – As accused can be medically examined as such it can extend to blood test also as part of investigation – Directing accused to undergo blood test does not amount to testimonial compulsion – Not violative of his right to life. (H.M.Prakash alias Dali Vs State of Karnataka) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 322 (Karnataka)
Summons – Service – Case dismissed for non payment of registered postal charges – There is no procedure for issuance of process to an accused by post – If service of summons is not fruitful then Court can issue bailable or non-bailable warrant of arrest – Order as to payment of postal charges being illegal as such consequent dismissal for not taking steps is also not proper in the eye of law. (M/s Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mill Ltd. Vs M/s Shivashakti) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 270 (Kant.)
Service of accused through counsel – Not valid – If accused were evading service Magistrate can adopt coercive measures. (M/s Satya Securities Vs Ms.Uma Erry) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 108 (H.P.)
Proclaimed offender – A person who continues to remain outside the country with a view to avoid any law to be enforced against him is said to be absconding. (Geetha Ramachandran Vs S.Ravichandran) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 149 (Madras)
Proclaimed offender – Accused residing in a Foreign Country – No attempt made to serve summons through Ministry of External Affairs – Order declaring accused a proclaimed offender set aside. (Sunil Kumar Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 165 (Delhi)
Witnesses summoned – Service effected – Failure to appear – Evidence not to be closed – Magistrate to adopt coercive methods to secure presence of witnesses as per Ss.87 to 89 – Once the witness has appeared, a summary trial for disobedience can be held u/s 350 Cr.P.C. (Bachittar Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 608 (P&H)
Bailable offence – Non bailable warrants issued for procuring presence – The moment such a person is either produced in execution of warrant of arrest or appear on his own has to be released on furnishing bond with or without surety as liberty of no person can be curtailed, abridged or put in shelf in a case where he is entitled to be released on bail. (Puneet Singh Chauhan & Anr. Vs State & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 629 (Delhi)
Hire purchase agreement – Transfer of vehicle without knowledge or consent of the petitioner – Search warrant can be issued u/s 94 of the Cr.P.C. (Suresh Kumar Vs State of Kerala) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 118 (Kerala)
Minor girls – Custody – Father in jail in connection with murder of his wife – Girls presently in custody of their mausa and mausi and not willing to go into custody of their grand parents – Order handing over custody of girls to grand parents set aside – Provision of S.97 inapplicable in situation of the case – Until decision of competent Court, girls to continue in custody of their mausa and mausi. (Satya Narayan Vs Bihari Lal) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 578 (Rajasthan)
Wife left matrimonial home and left children in the custody of husband – Wife filing application u/s 97 Cr.P.C. – No specific allegation against husband that he had by use of physical force taken children in his custody and retained them – Wife not deprived of the custody of the children – If at all wife desired she could have filed proceedings u/s 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act – There was no wrongful confinement of children by husband – Held, there was no jurisdiction and justification for ADJ to issue production warrants u/s 97 Cr.P.C. (Marotrao Vs Usha Marotrao Pachare) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 701 (Bombay)
Injuries on the person of accused – Opinion of doctor that they could have been self inflicted or caused by a friendly hand – Merely because the prosecution has not been able to explain the injuries on the person of accused it would not go to the root of the matter – Conviction upheld. (Gurcharan Singh & Anr. Vs The State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 312 (P&H)
Provisions of S.100 Cr.P.C. if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of NDPS Act, are applicable. (State of Punjab Vs Jalaur Singh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 234 (P&H)
Raid by Drug Inspector – Recovery of drugs which accused was not authorised to possess – Independent witnesses not joined – Drug Inspector joined two doctors from his own department – They cannot be said to be independent witnesses – Conviction set aside. (Mukhtiar Singh Vs State) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 220 (P&H)
Non joining of independent witnesses – Recovery of poppy husk on secret information – No witness from the locality joined – One witness joined from different village – Recovery doubtful for non compliance of S.100 Cr.P.C. – Conviction set aside. (Karnail Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 474 (P&H)
Search, seizure or arrest under NDPS Act – Provisions of Ss.100, 165 Cr.P.C. are applicable. (Karnail Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 474 (P&H)
Bank accounts – Seizure or prohibit its operation – Bank accounts of the accused or any of his relation is ‘property’ within the meaning of S.102 of the Code – A police officer in course of investigation can seize or prohibit the operation of the said account if such assets have direct links with the commission of the offence for which the police officer is investigating into. (Nabapravat Trust Vs State of Orissa) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 662 (Orissa)
Seizure of property with aid of S.102 – Not a stage for deciding conflicting claims of persons who claim to be entitled to seized property. (Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 268 (Bombay)
“Any property” – Must include such property found or parked anywhere and in any form, whether tangible or intangible – Property transferred electronically would be one form of such intangible property. (Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 268 (Bombay)
Property seized under S.102 – Ultimately to be disposed u/s 452 of Cr.P.C. (Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 268 (Bombay)
Search and seizure – Evidence obtained under illegal search is not completely excluded unless it has caused serious prejudice to the accused. (State of M.P. through C.B.I etc. Vs Paltan Mallah & Ors. etc.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 899 (S.C.)
Sufficient and cogent reasons must be available for a direction to execute a bond to keep peace – Interference with the proceedings must be done only sparingly in a fit case – Registration of FIR by itself cannot in any way affect or detract against the validity of the proceedings. (Mohammedali Vs State of Kerala) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 446 (Kerala)
Bond for keeping peace – Period is required to be specific. (Mohammed Sadiq Abdul Khalil Patel & Ors. Vs V.Y.Choughule, PSI & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 382 (Bombay)
Bond for keeping peace – Use of cyclostyled sheets – Practice deprecated. (Mohammed Sadiq Abdul Khalil Patel & Ors. Vs V.Y.Choughule, PSI & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 382 (Bombay)
Concealment of one’s presence when he has reason to believe that he is doing so with a view to commit a cognizable offence would attract proceedings under the Section – Entrustment of property and disposal of the same in violation of any direction of law is sufficient to complete the offence. (Aruchami Vs State of Kerala) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 607 (Ker.)
Good behaviour bonds furnished but inspite of that Magistrate remanded delinquents to jail custody – Reasons for not accepting bond not stated in the order sheet – Order passed by Magistrate is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law – Order set aside – Executive Magistrate directed to pay compensation to each of the persons at the rate of Rs.2,000/- within a period of two months. (The Secretary, Bar Association, Sohella Vs Sri D.Mohapatra, Executive Magistrate, Sohella ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 76 (Orissa)
Interim bonds – Cannot be demanded or asked to be furnished by a person unless and until he is a habitual offender or is so desperate and dangerous that if he is at large without security it will be hazardous to the community – Petitioner a Science Graduate holding diploma in Civil Engineering was asked to furnish interim bond and put him in jail – Authority acted illegally without following the procedure under Cr.P.C. before confining petitioner to jail – State Govt. directed to take appropriate action against respondent No.2. for his wrongful and illegal act. (Deelip Bhikaji Sonawane Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 512 (Bombay)
Maintenance – Recovery – Dismissal of application – Restoration – Illness of father stated to be the reason but no documentary evidence produced – Held, it is not by itself sufficient to dismiss application for restoration – Although under Family Court Rules service is to be effected within six months, but liberal view of the matter to be taken by Courts in the light of purpose sought to be achieved by provision of S.125 Cr.P.C. – Restoration application allowed. (Kalpana Omprakash Nighot Vs Omprakash Bhauraoji Nighot) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 670 (Bom.)
Separate living by mutual consent – Question as to whether said agreement can be treated as legal divorce comes in the domain of Family Courts Act and away from the jurisdiction of High Court. (Vitthal Hiraji Jadhav Vs Harnabai Vitthal Jadhav) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 251 (Bombay)
Unmarried major girl has right to claim maintenance from her father – This right flows from S.125 Cr.P.C. and S.20(3) Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. (Jagdish Jugtawat Vs Manju Lata) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 565 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 137 (S.C.)
Nature of proceedings under Hindu Marriage Act and Code of Criminal Procedure are different – Wife can pursue both the remedies simultaneously – Amount of maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be set off against alimony awarded under a different proceedings – Order of maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. can only be modified, altered or set aside u/s 125(4), (5) and/or u/s 127 of the Code. (Naresh Kumar Rai Vs Mamta Rai) 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 663 (M.P.)
Divorced Muslim woman – Right to claim maintenance – She is entitled to claim maintenance ever after expiry of Iddat period provided she has not remarried and she is unable to maintain herself – Children of Muslim parents are not affected by provisions of Act of 1986 in their claim for maintenance. (Gulam Mohammad Vs Smt.Achhu) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 250 (Rajasthan) : 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 208 (Rajasthan)
‘In the whole’ – Means to a single claimant – Where there are more than one claimant then to each one separately not more than Rs.500/-. (Rajeshwari S.Shende Vs Suryakant S.Shende) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 193 (Kant.)
Child – Interim maintenance – Paternity – At the time of grant of interim maintenance the fact of paternity is not required to be proved. (Manoj Kumar Gautam Vs Laxmi Bai) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 297 (M.P.)
Child – Maintenance – Only question before Court will be whether the person who denies paternity is actually the father of the child or not – Court not to be prejudiced on the ground that mother is either immoral or unchaste. (Geetha Vs State of Kerala) 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 405 (Kerala)
Daughter – A father, whether a Hindu or Muslim, is under an obligation to maintain his daughter though a major till she gets married. (Bankim Ch.Banerjee Vs Chinmoyee Banerjee) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 377 (Calcutta) : 2003(2) Civil Court Cases 158 (Calcutta)
Death of wife after passing of the maintenance order – Maintenance is payable till the date of death of wife. (Vijay Kumar Vs Suresh Kumar) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 290 (Raj.)
Divorced wife – Interim maintenance – Merely because wife has been divorced by husband is no ground to decline her maintenance under S.125 Cr.P.C. (Krishan Kumar Vs Gayatri Devi) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 622 (P&H)
Execution – Maintenance order – No warrant can be issued for recovery of dues unless application therefor is made within one year from date on which it became due. (B.G.Shivananjappa Vs Shantha alias Ushadevi & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 625 (Karnataka)
Extending time for deposit – Time once granted by Court can be extended even after the expiry of the period. (Kunhimohammed Vs Nafeesa) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 405 (Kerala)
Illicit child – Child born within six months of marriage – At the time of marriage husband knew about pregnancy of wife – Husband accepting child as his own – Wife entitled to claim maintenance for the child. (Prakash Bhaskarrao Patil Vs Preeti Prakash Patil) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 564 (Bombay)
Illicit child – Maintenance – Husband and wife having physical relationship prior to marriage – Child born to them within six months of marriage – Child is entitled to maintenance. (Prakash Bhaskarrao Patil Vs Preeti Prakash Patil) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 564 (Bombay)
Interim maintenance – Even on affidavits, interim maintenance can be granted. (Suresh Vs Smt.Lalita) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 661 (Rajasthan)
Interim maintenance – Is an interlocutory order – No revision lies against such an order. (Chhotu Singh Vs Smt.Basanti) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 566 (Rajasthan)
Interim maintenance – Marriage – Prima facie no proof of marriage – Application for interim maintenance held rightly rejected – Question of marriage to be decided in the main application pending u/s 125 Cr.P.C. (Smt.Shakuntla Devi Vs Shiv Charan Sankhla) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 621 (Rajasthan)
Interim maintenance – Non payment – Court cannot strike out defence of husband as Civil Procedure Code has no application as proceedings are governed by Criminal Procedure Code. (Vinod s/o Pralhad Balap Vs Smt.Chhaya w/o Vinod Balap) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 9 (Bombay) : 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 35 (Bombay)
Interim maintenance – Wife deserted – Wife unable to maintain herself – Interim maintenance of Rs.1000/- granted – Amount is not excessive. (Sham Sunder Vs Avinash Kaur) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 218 (P&H)
Living separately – Husband carrying on with another woman – Wife has got a sufficient ground to live separately. (Rajeshwari S.Shende Vs Suryakant S.Shende) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 193 (Kant.)
Living separately by consent – If spouses are residing separately permanently by consent, then wife is not entitled to claim maintenance from husband after the date of execution of said agreement if that agreement has been acted on and appropriate provision for maintenance has been made. (Popat Kashinath Bodke Vs Kamalabai Popat Bodke) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 421 (Bombay)
Maintenance – ‘Living in adultery’ – Has to be continuous course of adulterous conduct – Stray instances of departure from virtue – Not sufficient to deny maintenance to wife. (Chanda Preetam Wadate Vs Preetam Ganpatrao Wadate) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 420 (Bombay)
Maintenance – Adjustment – Maintenance granted u/s 24 Hindu Marriage Act – Amount adjustable against maintenance payable u/s 125 Cr.P.C. (Harish Kumar Vs Smt.Manju) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 313 (Rajasthan)
Maintenance – Admission of wife that she had illicit relations with another person at the time of marriage and was pregnant at the time of marriage – Maintenance rightly refused to wife. (Shiv Kumar Vs Baby Sonam) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 684 (P&H)
Maintenance – Adultery – Single act of adultery – Held, merely proving one or more instances of lapses in the character of the wife is not sufficient to absolve the husband from his liability to pay maintenance to wife. (Laxman Naik Vs Nalita alias Lalita Naik) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 684 (Orissa) : 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 242 (Orissa)
Maintenance – Adultery – Solitary incident in isolation – Does not disentitle wife to claim maintenance. (Prakash Bhaskarrao Patil Vs Preeti Prakash Patil) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 564 (Bombay)
Maintenance – Adultery – Wife left matrimonial home and lived with her paramour in rented house – Landlord of house testified to this effect and statement of daughter that her mother was leading an immoral life – Wife not willing to join her husband – Maintenance refused. (Angoori Vs Phool Kumar) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 15 (P&H)
Maintenance – Allegation of husband that wife does not want to live with him – Held, when wife lived with husband so many times and out of that wedlock two daughters were born then allegation of husband is wrong and the case of wife that she was beaten so many times as such she does not want to live with husband appears to be correct one. (Badri Narain Vs Laxmi Gehlot) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 147 (Rajasthan)
Maintenance – Allegation of wife that she was treated cruelly and there was demand of dowry – Husband levelling false charge of adultery – False charge of such nature itself justifies living separately – No illegality in recording statement of husband in question answer form – Husband earning Rs.40/- per day – No interference in order allowing maintenance of Rs.400/- p.m. to wife. (Puran Singh Vs Smt.Shanti Devi) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 128 (Rajasthan)
Maintenance – Amount of maintenance claimed even if not mentioned in application, amount payable as maintenance is supposed to be determined by Magistrate. (Rekhaben Yogendrakumar Maniar Vs State of Gujarat) 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 191 (Gujarat) : 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 394 (Gujarat)
Maintenance – Application decided after nine years – Delay not on part of wife – Wife is entitled to maintenance from date of application. (Manmohini Jindal Vs Tarsem Chand Jindal) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 388 (P&H)
Maintenance – As a normal rule maintenance to be granted from date of application unless there are justifiable reasons for departing from this normal rule due to which grant of maintenance may be from the subsequent date. (Shobha Bhaurao Rane & Ors. Vs Bhaurao Gulabrao Rane) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 432 (Bombay) : 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 719 (Bombay)
Maintenance – Child – Born within eight months of marriage – Admission of wife that she had illicit relations with another person at the time of marriage and was pregnant at the time of marriage – Statement of wife u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is not sufficient – Minor child is entitled to maintenance – Question of legitimacy of child can be decided by civil Court and not in summary proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. (Shiv Kumar Vs Baby Sonam) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 684 (P&H)
Maintenance – Child – Paternity denied – DNA test to determine the paternity of child – In a petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. Magistrate is not justified in directing DNA test for determination of paternity of child. (Manik Chandra Ankure Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 682 (Calcutta) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 260 (Calcutta)
Maintenance – Child attaining majority during pendency of proceedings – He is entitled to maintenance from the date of application to the date of attaining majority. (Smt.Dhani Nayak & Ors. Vs Sanakara Nayak) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 795 (Orissa)
Maintenance – Compromise deed reduced in writing and filed by parties before Family Court – However, no decree passed in terms of compromise – Compromise cannot be enforced u/s 125(3) unless decree is passed by Family Court. (Laxman Wasudeo Nimje Vs Sunita Laxman Nimje & Ors.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 357 (Bombay)
Maintenance – Contention of husband that he has two wives and since there was no divorce, applicant is not entitled to maintenance, rejected. (Mukunda Ramaji Dunedar Vs Smt.Sitabai) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 757 (Bombay)
Maintenance – Counsel of husband busy in another Court – Wife allowed to be examined as a witness exparte – Held, proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. are quasi criminal in nature and evidence is to be recorded in presence of the opposite party – Wife allowed to be cross examined by opposite party on payment of her expenses and costs. (Ram Chandra Vs Smt.Igyarsi Devi & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 621 (Rajasthan)
Maintenance – Daughter-in-law/grandson – Not entitled to claim maintenance from father-in-law/grandfather under S.125 Cr.P.C. – They have right to claim maintenance from such person under Hindu law and not under S.125 Cr.P.C. (Subhaschandra Vs Indubai & Anr.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 407 (Karnataka)
Maintenance – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of husband – Wife without justifiable reason not joining husband – Held, wife is not entitled to maintenance. (Sayyed Jabbar Ali Vs Mst.Saheba Fatima) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 687 (Bom.)
Maintenance – Deed of divorce – Wife gave up her right of maintenance by Deed of Divorce – Deed of divorce not valid in law or custom – Held, wife is entitled to maintenance – Husband earning Rs.25,000/- per annum – Maintenance of Rs.500/- granted to wife. (Kaushalyabai Dinkar Mule Vs Dinkar Mahadeorao Mule) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 542 (Bom.)
Maintenance – Delay in disposal of application – Invocation of jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India – If convinced that deserted woman was on verge of destitution, High Court itself has jurisdiction to direct suitable amount of maintenance being awarded and to secure compliance with its direction. (Shail Vs Manoj Kumar & Ors.) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 472 (S.C.)
Maintenance – Divorced wife – Divorce by mutual consent granted on the basis of an affidavit in which it was mentioned that wife will not claim maintenance – A wife already divorced even by mutual consent or otherwise and if not remarried, is entitled to maintenance. (Narendra Mohapatra Vs Manorama Mohapatra) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 680 (Orissa)
Maintenance – Document of divorce not proved – Maintenance allowed. (Mst.Raj Kanwar Vs Bhanwar Singh & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 459 (Rajasthan)
Maintenance – Enhancement – Revisional Court cannot enhance the maintenance of his own when no revision is filed against the grant of maintenance. (Gopi Vs Smt.Krishna) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 256 (P&H)
Maintenance – Ex parte order – Husband remained absent due to non communication of date of hearing by his counsel – Absence not wilful – Exparte order of maintenance set aside on payment of Rs.1,000/- as costs. (Mirza Hasan Beg Vs Ishrat Yasmeen) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 418 (M.P.)
Maintenance – Exparte divorce decree obtained by husband against wife – Claim for maintenance cannot be rejected. (Haizaz Pashaw Vs Gulazar Banu) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 542 (Kerala)
Maintenance – From date of application – Merely because some interim maintenance was granted it does not debar Court from granting maintenance from date of application – However, interim maintenance paid is adjustable towards the maintenance finally awarded. (Manmohini Jindal Vs Tarsem Chand Jindal) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 388 (P&H)
Maintenance – Husband earning Rs.30-40 per day – Amount of Rs.500/- p.m. as maintenance awarded to wife – Not illegal. (Jagdish Singh Vs District Judge) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 336 (All.)
Maintenance – Illegitimate child is entitled to claim maintenance from man. (Smt.Dhani Nayak & Ors. Vs Sanakara Nayak) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 795 (Orissa)
Maintenance – In Family card issued by Civil Defence Authorities & Identity card issued by Election Commission and voters list respondent shown as wife of petitioner – Order of maintenance granting Rs.500/- per month is not liable to be interfered with. (Manoj Mandal Vs Smt.Urmila Mandal) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 618 (Rajasthan) : 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 412 (Rajasthan)
Maintenance – Income of husband Rs.5,000/- – Maintenance of Rs.1300/- per month awarded to wife – No infirmity in order. (Mahendra Singh Vs Smt.Chanchal) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 49 (Rajasthan) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 277 (Rajasthan)
Maintenance – It is not co-extensive with civil liability of husband. (Badri Narain Vs Laxmi Gehlot) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 147 (Raj.)
Maintenance – Living in adultery – Wife left matrimonial home and living with her paramour in rented house – Landlord of house testified to this effect – Statement of daughter that her mother was leading an immoral life – Wife not willing to join her husband – Maintenance refused. (Angoori Vs Phool Kumar) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 209 (P&H)
Maintenance – Magistrate has discretion to grant maintenance either from date of application for from date of order – While ordering grant of maintenance either from date of order or from date of application Magistrate is required to record reasons for the same. (Manmohini Jindal Vs Tarsem Chand Jindal) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 388 (P&H)
Maintenance – Magistrate is bound to award maintenance if wife is having no means and husband having means neglects or refuses to maintain wife – Magistrate is not required to examine whether conduct of wife in initially leaving house was just or not. (Mukesh Kumari Vs Sheo Raj Singh) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 88 (Allahabad)
Maintenance – Marriage denied – Paternity of children also denied – Ration card produced but not proved hence not relied – Voter’s list proved – Children shown to be issues of petitioner in school certificate – No evidence in rebuttal – Children alone entitled to maintenance. (Narayanlal Vs Kumari Leela) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 692 (Raj.)
Maintenance – Marriage in dispute – It must be proved that some rituals of marriage had been performed – Witnesses stating that marriage took place but not stating any rituals that had taken place – Marriage not proved – In absence of proof of marriage maintenance cannot be granted. (Bhabagrahi Samantaray Vs Satyabhama Swain) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 36 (Orissa)
Maintenance – Marriage in dispute – Strict proof of marriage is not required in proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. – However when marriage is in dispute some evidence must be led by wife to show that some rituals of marriage had been performed. (Bhabagrahi Samantaray Vs Satyabhama Swain) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 36 (Orissa)
Maintenance – No evidence to prove that wife was subjected to torture and harassment by husband – Wife left matrimonial home on her own – Wife not entitled to maintenance. (Deb Narayan Halder Vs Smt.Anushree Halder) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 265 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 460 (S.C.)
Maintenance – Non payment – Husband imprisoned – Execution application cannot be dismissed merely for this reason – If execution application includes the maintenance for the period for which husband was sent to jail then an order for attachment of property for the amount for which he was imprisoned can be passed and he can be ordered to be arrested for the amount of arrears subsequently accrued – Even two different order can also be passed. (Bhavnaben Shamjibhai & Anr. Vs Dinesh Premjibhai Kapadia) 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 356 (Gujarat) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 687 (Gujarat)
Maintenance – Non payment – Husband imprisoned – That by itself does not make the execution application bad or not maintainable. (Bhavnaben Shamjibhai & Anr. Vs Dinesh Premjibhai Kapadia) 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 356 (Gujarat) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 687 (Gujarat)
Maintenance – Only legally married wife is entitled to claim maintenance – Marriage with a man having a living spouse – Marriage is a nullity – Such a wife is not entitled to maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. – Wife not informed about husbands’ earlier marriage when she married him is of no avail as rule of estoppel is not applicable to defeat the provision of S.125 Cr.P.C. – It is also inconsequential that husband treated her as his wife. (Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 541 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 133 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 397 (S.C.)
Maintenance – Parents – Jurisdiction – An application for maintenance by father or mother claiming maintenance has to be filed where the person from whom maintenance is claimed lives – Benefit given to wife and children to initiate proceedings at the place where they reside is not given to parents. (Vijay Kumar Prasad Vs State of Bihar & Ors.) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 392 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 01 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 709 (S.C.)
Maintenance – Proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. are quasi civil and quasi criminal in nature. (Daxaben Nileshkumar Shah Vs Nileshkumar Pravinchandra Shah) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 639 (Gujarat)
Maintenance – Provision is made under Chapter IX of the Code – Burden of proof is not so strict under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. so as to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt – Court has only to consider overall circumstances on the basis of the evidence brought on record. (Smt.Gyarsi & Anr. Vs Ramkaran) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 597 (Rajasthan)
Maintenance – Recovery – Maintenance amount cannot be recovered by way of attachment of salary – Recourse can be taken to S.421 or other relevant provisions. (Narendra Kumar Sharma Vs Madhu) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 414 (Rajasthan) : 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 356 (Rajasthan)
Maintenance – Separate living by mutual consent – Wife has no right to claim alimony from husband. (Vitthal Hiraji Jadhav Vs Harnabai Vitthal Jadhav & Anr.) 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 412 (Bombay) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 251 (Bombay)
Maintenance – Unmarried daughter – She is legally entitled to be maintained by her father till she is married, even though she may be a major. (Jagir Singh Vs Jasbir Kaur & Ors.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 716 (P&H)
Maintenance – Wife alleged to be pregnant at the time of marriage and this fact concealed by wife as such marriage alleged to be invalid – It was difficult to believe that woman who was five months pregnant could conceal pregnancy from husband – Husband cannot be said not in know of fact of pregnancy and cannot be heard to say that the marriage was invalid or void for that reason – Order allowing maintenance to wife by Magistrate restored. (Amina Vs Hassn Koya) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 636 (S.C.)
Maintenance – Wife ill treated and turned out of house – Wife living separately – Wife cannot be denied maintenance on ground that she was not living with husband. (Smt.Gyarsi & Anr. Vs Ramkaran) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 597 (Rajasthan)
Maintenance – Wife must prove neglect and refusal on part of husband – Ill-treatment cannot be substantiated on basis of general allegations of wife in absence of details thereof. (Sayyed Jabbar Ali Vs Mst.Saheba Fatima) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 687 (Bom.)
Maintenance – Woman of a void marriage is not entitled to maintenance – However, son born out of such marriage is entitled to claim maintenance from his father. (Maghar Dass Vs Raj Rani alias Surinder Kanta & Anr.) 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 169 (P&H) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 192 (P&H)
Maintenance awarded – Wife remarried after divorce – Held, wife is entitled to recover maintenance arrears till she entered into second marriage. (Smt.Savitri Pandey Vs Judge, Family Court, Allahabad & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 609 (Allahabad)
Marriage – Proof – Documentary evidence – Validity of marriage for the purpose of summary proceedings is to be determined on the basis of evidence brought on record by the parties – Standard of proof of marriage in such proceedings is not as strict as is required in a trial of offence under S.494 IPC – If the claimant in such proceeding succeeds in showing that she and the respondent have lived together as husband and wife, then Court can presume that they are legally wedded spouses and in such situation, the party who denies the marital status had to rebut the presumption. (Nirmalabai Vs Uttam) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 147 (Bom.)
Marriage – Strict proof of marriage is not required – Proof of rites and customs are not necessary to decide issue of marriage – Long living as husband and wife and acceptance as such in the society is sufficient to hold the status of lady as the wife of the opposite party for the purpose of consideration of application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. (Smt.Rahas Mohapatra Vs Dr.Balakrushna Dash) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 461 (Orissa)
Neglect or refusal to maintain – Furnishes the cause of action or ground to claim maintenance – It can be express or implied – It may be inferred from the words or conduct – If husband does not care for wife and minor children it is a case of neglect or refusal to maintain wife and child. (Badri Narain Vs Laxmi Gehlot) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 147 (Rajasthan)
Proceedings are summary in nature – Decision of a Criminal Court in a criminal proceedings will not operate as decisive in any civil proceedings between the parties regarding the paternity of the child. (Sajitha Vs State of Kerala) 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 78 (Kerala) : 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 24 (Kerala)
Proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are of civil nature. (Vijay Kumar Prasad Vs State of Bihar & Ors.) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 392 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 01 (S.C.) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 709 (S.C.)
Second marriage during subsistence of first marriage – Amounts to living in adultery – Maintenance order quashed. (Ravinder Kumar Vs Smt.Sunita) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 150 (P&H)
Wife – Means only legally wedded wife – Applicant if starts living with non applicant in presence of her earlier husband then in such a situation the status of applicant would be of a kept mistress and she cannot be regarded as a legally wedded wife – Case remanded for enquiry afresh whether former husband of woman was alive or whether marriage with non applicant was ceremonised. (Ram Chander & Anr. Vs Radha Krishan ) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 389 (Rajasthan) : 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 775 (Rajasthan)
Wife living in adultery after divorce – Held, wife cannot be refused maintenance on the ground that she is living in adultery. (Gopi Vs Smt.Krishna) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 256 (P&H)
Wife living separately permanently by consent and executed a deed declaring therein that after the execution of said deed they were not to have relations as husband and wife and they are divorcing each other by customary system and wife relinquished her right to maintenance and property – Held, wife is not entitled to maintenance. (Popat Kashinath Bodke Vs Kamalabai Popat Bodke) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 421 (Bombay)
Working woman – Wife employed and earning Rs.1800/- per month – Grant of maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month is not unjust and unreasonable keeping in view that salary of husband is Rs.7,500/- per month. (Johnson M.Joseph Vs Anita Johnson) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 177 (M.P.)
Illegitimate child – Child born long after divorce – Held, such child is not entitled to maintenance. (Gopi Vs Smt.Krishna) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 256 (P&H)
Maintenance – Recovery – Limitation is one year for making application for execution of maintenance order – However, where maintenance order is stayed by superior Court then period of one year is to reckoned from vacation of stay – Maintenance can be recovered for the period of one year earlier to date of filing of recovery petition. (Dhareppa Vs Smt.Renuka) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 619 (Karnataka) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 109 (Karnataka)
Maintenance – Recovery proceedings – Kept pending for five years – Maintenance accrued after filing of recovery proceedings upto the date of decision in such recovery proceedings, can be ordered to be paid in the same recovery proceedings – Fresh application need not be filed – Law of limitation as prescribed u/s 125(3) Proviso Cr.P.C. is not applicable for recovery of such maintenance. (Shantha @ Ushadevi & Anr. Vs B.G.Shivananjappa) 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 430 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 660 (S.C.)
Maintenance – Desertion by wife without sufficient cause – Wife not complying with decree of restitution of conjugal rights – Held, wife is not entitled to maintenance. (Smt.Birwati Vs Dharam Singh) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 109 (P&H)
Maintenance – Interim maintenance – Cannot be denied to wife on the allegation that she was living in adultery – Husband has to prove the allegation by cogent evidence. (Jagir Singh Vs Jasbir Kaur & Ors.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 716 (P&H)
Maintenance – Wife after taking divorce agreeing to stay separately and giving up her claim of maintenance – Held, wife is not entitled to claim maintenance. (Gajanan Vs Sheela Gajanan Solanke & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 833 (Bombay)
Child – Maintenance – Paternity – DNA report by Govt. Scientific Expert not enumerated under S.293(4) – Can be admitted in evidence without examination of the expert. (Geetha Vs State of Kerala) 2005(2) Civil Court Cases 405 (Kerala)
Additional evidence – Maintenance – At the stage of final arguments wife seeking to produce additional evidence – Order allowing application for additional evidence without even naming which witness had to be examine – Magistrate had not even mentioned as to which witness was to be summoned and apart from this valid reasons for allowing the applications also missing – Impugned order quashed. (Banshi Lal Vs Smt.Chau Bai) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 378 (Rajasthan)
Maintenance – Prayer for grant of maintenance from date of application – Non grant of such prayer or part of such prayer – It is obligatory on the part of Court to assign reasons as to why maintenance though prayed for from date of application is not granted from that date – Non assignment of reasons amounts to serious error – High Court can interfere and rectify the same in exercise of revisional powers. (Daxaben Nileshkumar Shah Vs Nileshkumar Pravinchandra Shah) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 639 (Gujarat)
Interim maintenance – Allowed on the basis of affidavits filed by wife – Opportunity not given to husband to rebut the sanctity of affidavits filed by wife – Held, trial Court has abused the process of Court – Order allowing interim maintenance set aside and case remanded to be decided after giving an opportunity of rebuttal to husband. (Vijay Kumar Vs The State of Rajasthan & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 595 (Rajasthan)
Interim maintenance – Revision dismissed by Sessions Judge on ground of maintainability as well as on merits – Petition u/s 482 in garb of second revision is not maintainable. (Nandlal Vs Smt.Shankari) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 52 (Raj.)
Interim maintenance – Second marriage – Son from previous marriage adopted – Courts below denied maintenance to wife as dissolution of her previous marriage was yet to be established on evidence and allowed Rs.400/- p.m. alongwith Rs.800/- as costs of litigation expenses to son – Held, order passed by Courts below neither tantamount to abuse of process of Court nor there is failure of justice – No ground to interfere in second revision u/s 482, Cr.P.C. (Parkash Bhutani Vs Ramma) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 311 (P&H)
Interim maintenance – Son born when husband was in jail – However, wife used to visit jail regularly to look after her husband – Nowadays, nothing is impossible and sexual relations between them in judicial custody cannot be ruled out – Ordinarily a Hindu lady would not go to such an extent by making such false accusation against a person that he was father of her child – Case of husband not accepted by two Courts below – Not proper to interfere u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Submission that maintenance for son was not claimed by wife as natural guardian of minor son rejected as hypertechnical. (Nandlal Vs Smt.Shankari) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 52 (Raj.)
Maintenance – Enhancement – Application filed without signatures – Application for grant of permission to put signatures – By allowing to put signatures amounts to rectifying the curable mistake. (Suryakanta & Ors. Vs Rahul & Anr.) 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 348 (Bombay)
Industry – Order u/s 133 Cr.P.C. for closure as industry was causing serious pollution by discharge of effluent – High Court quashed proceedings holding provisions of Pollution Control Act impliedly repealed provisions of S.133 Cr.P.C. – Held, view of High Court not correct – Area of operation in Code and pollution laws in question is different with different aims and objects – Both operated in their respective fields and there is no impediment for their existence side by side. (State of M.P. Vs Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd. & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 497 (S.C.)
Enquiry – First party members adduced evidence whereas second party members did not produce any evidence – No fault can be found with the order of Magistrate when he decided the case on the basis of evidence led in the case. (Jadunath Nayak Vs The Sub-Collector, Bhadrak & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 11 (Orissa)
For operation of the provision it must be shown that the interference with public comfort was considerable and a large section of the public was affected injuriously. (Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 125 (S.C.)
Manufacturing unit adjacent to residential houses – Unbearable sounds produced for cutting and bending of iron & steel – Contention that unit was established under licence granted by District Industries Centre & that Magistrate did not himself visit site – Order passed by Magistrate not only on report of police but on basis of evidence recorded before it – No ground to interfere. (Birabhanu Mohapatra Vs Narendra Nath Mohanty & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 301 (Orissa)
– Nuisance – Flour mill working in residential locality for the last 8-9 years prior to filing of complaint – No action under the provision can be taken where the obstruction or nuisance is in existence for a long period and the only remedy open to the aggrieved party is to move civil Court. (Makhan Lal Vs Buta Singh) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 182 (P&H)
Nuisance – Purpose of the provision is to prevent public nuisance and involves a sense of urgency – It applies to a condition of the nuisance at the time when the order is passed and it is not intended to apply to future likelihood or what may happen at some later point of time – It does not deal with all potential nuisances and on the other hand applies when the nuisance is in existence. (Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 125 (S.C.)
Nuisance – Removal – Local Inspection by Magistrate – Cannot take the place of evidence itself and an absolute order cannot be passed merely on the basis of local inspection without recording evidence. (Ram Lal Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 689 (P&H)
Order not to be passed solely on the report submitted by Officer-in-charge of Police station or the documents made available to Magistrate without holding an enquiry. (Jadunath Nayak Vs The Sub-Collector, Bhadrak & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 11 (Orissa)
Proceedings are summary in nature – Question of title to be decided by Civil Court. (Tulsi Ram Vs Roshan Lal)2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 137 (P&H)
Public nuisance – Magistrate satisfied that installation of grinder for grinding spices and expeller for extracting oil causing discomfort to public – Magistrate ordered closure of use of said machines – No interference in revision. (Laxmi Chand Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 58 (Rajasthan)
Public nuisance – Provision does not apply to private nuisance – Dispute between parties regarding ownership and possession of house and civil litigation pending – Dispute does not involve public nuisance. (Smt.Sudhanarayan Vs Prem Phutela) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 396 (Rajasthan)
Question of title when required to be decided – Magistrate to refer the matter to a Civil Court. (Jadunath Nayak Vs The Sub-Collector, Bhadrak & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 11 (Orissa)
Second petition – In earlier proceedings house in question held to be repairable and that dispute between parties was not covered by public nuisance – Held, Magistrate has no jurisdiction to reopen matter on fresh application. (Smt.Sudhanarayan Vs Prem Phutela) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 396 (Rajasthan)
‘Community’ in clause (b) cannot be taken to mean residents of a particular house – It means something wider, that is, the public at large or the residents of an entire locality. (Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 125 (S.C.)
Encroachment of public street – Finding of fact given after holding enquiry – Cannot be interfered u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Balwant Vs Jai Singh & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 142 (P&H)
Nuisance – Poultry business – Order to close down as poultry business was creating nuisance to the inhabitants of the locality – Order quashed – Magistrate has first to pass conditional order requiring the petitioner to close down the business or to show-cause as to why the conditional order should not be made absolute – Then only, the procedure envisaged under S.138 of the Code should be followed. (Mahankali Yellaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 508 (A.P.)
Nuisance – Removal – Conditional order passed – To make the conditional order final Magistrate has to record evidence in the manner of summons case – It is not permissible to adduce evidence by way of affidavit – Non compliance of S.138(1) would vitiate the entire proceedings. (Ram Lal Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 689 (P&H)
Nuisance – Skins and bones of animals lying in the open which resulted into foul smell and pollution – Conditional order made keeping in view the report of Pollution Control Board and Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate and notice of appearance issued – Pursuant to notice petitioner appeared but absented on the next date of hearing and filed no reply – As a consequence thereof provisional order made absolute – Held, there is no force in the contention that evidence was required to be recorded for passing the final order as report of Pollution Control Board and Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate are sufficient to pass the final order without recording evidence. (Ram Lal Vs State of Punjab & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 172 (P&H)
Proceedings u/s 133 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature – Order passed u/s 138 in a proceedings u/s 133 does not operate res judicata in case aggrieved party files civil suit to establish his right. (Balwant Vs Jai Singh & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 142 (P&H)
Distinction – Provision of S.144 is general provision and S.133 is a more specific provision – Order u/s 133 is conditional whereas order u/s 144 is absolute. (Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 125 (S.C.)
Public street – Obstruction ordered to be removed – It is a finding of fact which cannot be challenged in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Tulsi Ram Vs Roshan Lal)2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 137 (P&H)
Before a preliminary order for initiation of proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. Magistrate is under legal obligation to draw a preliminary order which should contain (a) satisfaction as to the existence of a dispute which is likely to cause breach of peace (b) ground of his being so satisfied (c) correct description of property (e) parties concerning such dispute (e) directing parties to put in appearance and put their case by filing written statement and to adduce evidence in support of their claim. (Gopi Chand Vs Mohd.Hanief) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 306 (J&K)
Civil Court in seisin of dispute – Passed interim order – Held, proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. not maintainable. (Kartika Sahoo Vs Krushna Chandra Sahoo) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 70 (Orissa)
Civil Court when seized of the matter and had granted ad-interim injunction in favour of one party restraining the other from interfering in his peaceful possession then proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated. (Madan Lal Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 86 (P&H)
Co-owners – Parties co-owners of property in dispute – Provision of S.145 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked. (Nilima Barman Vs Ratima Barman) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 518 (Gauhati)
Co-sharers – Proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable. (Madan Lal Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 86 (P&H)
Dispute concerning property – Dispute already taken cognizance by a civil court – Proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. ought not to be initiated. (S.Je. Ramesh Babhu Vs The Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 208 (Madras)
Dispute over possession of shop – Sessions Judge directed the parties to seek order of Civil Court – In pursuance of the said order Magistrate directed receiver to hand over possession to one ‘M’ – Held, Magistrate acted contrary to the directions of Additional Sessions Judge as he ought to have directed parties to get necessary orders from the civil Court – Impugned order set aside. (Bishan Narain Bhargava Vs Madan Lal Gulati) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 420 (P&H)
Dropping of proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. – Can be in three circumstances viz. (1) if the apprehension of breach of peace is recorded to have ceased to exist relating to the factum of possession of the disputed property and the Magistrate is absolutely satisfied about that from the materials placed before him; (2) if the decision relating to factum of possession has been determined by interlocutory or final order or decree by a Civil Court or any other Court of competent jurisdiction so as to avoid a conflict and dispute on the issue of possession; and (3) when one of the parties to the proceeding dies and there is no legal heir to be substituted or to contest the claim of the adverse party. (Sumani Kharsel Vs Dayamati Kharsel) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 540 (Orissa)
Finding of Magistrate as to possession of a party – Such a finding can always be challenged before a Civil Court – Civil Court is not bound by a prima facie finding recorded by Magistrate u/s 145 Cr.P.C. (Anup Kumar Sanyal Vs Gakul Bey) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 459 (Gauhati)
Forcible dispossession – One there is forcible dispossession there is apprehension of breach of peace and it cannot be assumed otherwise simply on the basis of report made by police officials – Magistrate directed to proceed u/s 145 Cr.P.C. (Ram Lubhaya Vs Sat Pal Kataria) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 368 (P&H)
If a person has been dispossessed earlier than two months preceding the report to the SDM the remedy lies in civil suit and not in proceedings u/s 145 of the Code. (Dalbir Singh Vs State (NCT of Delhi)) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 444 (Delhi)
Possession – Determination – Revenue entries – Under challenge – Magistrate not to go only by the revenue record but by the other material on record in regard to actual and physical possession of the land. (Dalbir Singh Vs State (NCT of Delhi)) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 444 (Delhi)
Possession – Dispute as to – Litigation pending in Civil Court – Proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated – Question as to who is in possession of the plot in dispute will also be decided in accordance with the decision of Civil Court. (Tilak Raj Gupta Vs Daljit Singh) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 51 (P&H)
Preliminary order u/s 145 Cr.P.C. – Injunction order passed by civil court against respondents 2 and 3 in favour of wife of first petitioner – Order of injunction passed earlier than the order of the Executive Magistrate – Proceedings quashed qua flat regarding which injunction order passed by civil Court. (Balmukund Gupta & Anr. Vs State of A.P.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 521 (A.P.)
Proceedings can be initiated under the provision only when there is apprehension of breach of peace on a dispute of land or water or the boundary thereof – Dispute without apprehension of breach of peace does not give jurisdiction to the Magistrate to initiate proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. to adjudicate the claim of possession. (Kartika Sahoo Vs Krushna Chandra Sahoo) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 70 (Orissa)
Proceedings u/s 145 – Court is mainly concerned with possession of the property in dispute on the date of the preliminary order and dispossession, if any, within two months prior to that date – Court is not required to decide either title to the property or right of possession of the same. (Ranbir Singh Vs Dalbir Singh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 187 (S.C.)
Proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. – Not competent when either the matter of title and possession has been earlier adjudicated upon by a competent Civil Court or is pending adjudication. (Kailash Nath Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 579 (Allahabad)
Status quo order by civil court – Proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. not competent when there is an order of Civil Court. (Dalbir Singh Vs State (NCT of Delhi)) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 444 (Delhi)
Title suit concerning same property pending between parties in civil Court – As such proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated by Magistrate. (Mani Chora Das Vs State of Jharkhand) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 533 (Jharkhand)
Order of attachment – Passed u/s 146(1) during pendency of proceedings u/s 145 – Neither the respective rights of the parties are adjudicated nor any findings about any legal right is given by such an order – Revision against – Not maintainable. (Jai Prakash Vs Rajeshwar Prasad)2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 31 (Uttaranchal)
Effect of the order of Magistrate passed u/s 145/146 Cr.P.C. – (i) ‘Competent Court’ – Do not necessarily mean a civil court only – A competent court is one which has the jurisdictional competence to determine the question of title or the rights of the parties with regard to the entitlement as to possession over the property forming subject matter of proceedings before the Executive Magistrate; (ii) Party unsuccessful in an order u/s 145(1) to initiate proceedings in a competent court to establish its entitlement to possession over the disputed property and such a suit shall not be bad for not seeking relief of possession; (iii) At the stage of final adjudication of rights order of Magistrate is only one out of several pieces of evidence; (iv) Interim injunction inconsistent with the one made by the Executive Magistrate can be passed – Order of Court – final or interlocutory, would have the effect of declaring one of the parties entitled to possession and evicting therefrom the party successful before the Executive Magistrate within the meaning of sub-section (6) of S.145 Cr.P.C. (Shanti Kumar Panda Vs Shakuntala Devi) 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 344 (S.C.)
Civil Court in a suit passed interim order restraining defendant not to dispossess the petitioners from land till disposal of suit – Held, during pendency of civil proceedings, SDM has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/s 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. – Order of attachment by SDM is abuse of the process of Court and liable to be quashed. (Balraj Singh Vs Sewa Singh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 175 (P&H)
Magistrate can intervene u/s 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. if there is imminent breach of peace – In instant case proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. initiated in 1997 and order of attachment of land passed u/s 146 after 3 years – Order set aside – For 3 years there was no breach of peace. (Dalbir Singh Vs State (NCT of Delhi)) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 444 (Delhi)
Initiating proceedings u/s 145 – Order is revisable – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. (Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 604 (P&H)
Civil suit already pending – Proceedings u/ss 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated. (Ippan & two Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 49 (Allahabad)
Civil suit for permanent injunction filed by both the parties – Order of Magistrate u/ss 145 & 146 Cr.P.C. quashed – Parties to approach civil Court for interim order. (Ranbir Singh Vs Dalbir Singh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 187 (S.C.)
Attachment – Order of – Dispute between parties resolved by Arbitration – Award never challenged – Rights of parties having been determined there is no authority in Magistrate to pass order of attachment more so when report of SHO was only a slip shod finding given with a closed mind – Proper course is to go in for execution of award – Order quashed. (Brij Ratan Mohta Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 498 (Raj.)
No emergency to apprehend breach of peace – Order of attachment set aside. (Ram Swaroop Singh Vs State) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 409 (Rajasthan)
Attachment of property – Every person claiming any right to possession in respect of such property, whether he was a party to the said proceeding or not is bound by the said order – No person can occupy or interfere with the said property until the order of attachment is modified by Executive Magistrate or until rights of parties are determined by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction – The officer to whom possession of the property is entrusted in terms of warrant of attachment is duty bound to protect the same. (K.Pavan Vs Special Executive Magistrate) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 509 (A.P.)
‘Right of user’ – Means any dispute relating to a recurring right in the use of the land or water whether the right is claimed by a person in possession or not and such right is not limited to right of easement proper. (Siba Prasad Moharana Vs Dhadi Nayak) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 52 (Orissa)
Mandatory requirement for an order under this provision is that Magistrate must be satisfied from Police report or upon other information that a dispute exists with regard to the alleged right of user of a land and that dispute is likely to cause a breach of peace – Grounds are required to be recorded in writing of his being so satisfied and then ask parties to put their respective claims in form of a written statement – Magistrate can make prohibitory order or removal of any obstruction when he is satisfied that such an alleged right exists – This is only an opinion of Magistrate and there can be no determination of rights which is the domain of a Civil Court. (Siba Prasad Moharana Vs Dhadi Nayak) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 52 (Orissa)
Scope – Provision of S.147 has the same object as that of S.145 Cr.P.C. – Power conferred on Magistrate is intended to preserve public peace and not to determine the right of parties like a Civil Court. (Siba Prasad Moharana Vs Dhadi Nayak) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 52 (Orissa)
Delay in examination of some witnesses by police – Unless Investigating Officer is categorically asked as to why there was delay in examination of the witnesses the defence cannot gain any advantage therefrom. (Banti @ Guddu Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 608 (S.C.) : 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 27 (S.C.)
Arrest of a person to prevent commission of a cognizable offence – Police Officer can arrest a person without an order from Magistrate and without warrant if the officer comes to know of a design of that person to commit any cognizable offence – Arrest should be made only if it appears to such police officer that commission of offence cannot be otherwise prevented – Person arrested cannot be detained in custody for a period exceeding 24 hours from the time of his arrest, unless his further detention is required or authorised under any other provision of Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force – Provision of S.151 cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable or infringing upon fundamental rights of a citizen under Articles 21 and 22 of Constitution of India. (Ahmed Noormohmed Bhatii Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 415 (S.C.)
FIR – Rape – Delay of 4 days in lodging FIR – FIR lodged after Panchayat failed to give redress to prosecutrix – It is satisfactory explanation of delay. (Akhtar Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 64 (P&H)
Where the first information report is given by an accused himself to a police officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by section 25 of the Evidence Act – No part of the confessional statement can be proved or received in evidence, except to the extent it is permitted by section 27 of the Evidence Act. (Bandu Yedu Metkari Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 592 (Bombay)
FIR lodged by accused himself and gave details as to how the incident in question took place – Trial Court held the part of facts disclosed in FIR as admissible and not confessional in nature and relying upon the same besides motive and other evidence convicted the accused – Held, the only admissible circumstances in FIR were the motive of the crime, relationship of accused with his sister PW 6, her presence in the house at the time of commission of crime and presence of blood stains on the clothes of accused seized by the police when accused had gone to lodge FIR – Rest of the contents of FIR being confessional in nature could not be used against the accused – In the circumstances conviction and sentence set aside. (Bandu Yedu Metkari Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 592 (Bombay)
FIR – Admissible and inadmissible part – After excluding inadmissible part there is no legal bar against using the admissible part of the first report in evidence for the purpose of appreciating the other evidence led by the prosecution, likewise the factum of lodging of the first report by the appellant, on the date and time which is not in dispute. (Guman Mal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 330 (Rajasthan)
FIR – Given by accused in nature of confession – It cannot be used against the accused in evidence. (Naresh Vs State of M.P.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 595 (M.P.)
Delay in lodging FIR – Occurrence took place at night – Matter reported only on next day – Wife who had reported the matter herself had got 7 injuries and was afraid to go to Police Station – Delay not fatal. (State of Karnataka Vs Bhaskar Kushali Kotharkar & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 241 (S.C.)
FIR – Lodged after 5 days of incident – Delay – Husband of prosecutrix was in house on day of incidence – Creates doubt on the prosecution story. (Jogi Dan Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 486 (Rajasthan)
FIR – Rape – Delay of 26 hours – Explanation – Arrival of elders is awaited before lodging complaint in police when the offence of this nature is committed – Girl was unconscious in the day – Police station was at a distance of 15 kms and no mode of conveyance was available – Held, the delay in reporting the matter is thus fully explained. (State of Rajasthan Vs Om Prakash) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 64 (S.C.)
FIR – Rape – Delay of 4 days – Prosecutrix when reached home after the incident there was no male member and when her uncle returned from job, entire incident narrated to him and thereafter a report was lodged – Delay sufficiently explained. (Sawailal & Anr. Vs State) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 807 (Rajasthan)
FIR – Rape – Delay of two days – Explained that it was due to interference by Panchayat as to whether to take the matter to Court or not – Explanation is reasonable one – When respect of married woman is involved members would certainly decide whether to take the matter to Court or not. (Devinder Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 673 (P&H)
Gang rape – FIR – Delay of 10 days – Prosecutrix a teacher living all alone and was unmarried aged about 28 years and did not have any family member to whom she could have narrated her story – Trial Court rightly held delay stood explained and it did not discredit prosecution story. (Malkhansingh & Ors. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 206 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 331 (S.C.)
Rape – Married woman – FIR – Delay – Prosecutrix waited her husband for two days – Cannot be said that false report was lodged – In India a married woman would not do anything without informing her husband – Reluctance to go to the police is because of society’s attitude towards such woman – Delay in lodging complaint in such cases does not necessarily indicate that her version is false. (Sri Narayan Saha & Anr. Vs State of Tripura) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 638 (S.C.)
FIR – A police constable on patrol duty sent telephonic message to police post that three persons were assaulting a person and requested for sending police force – It cannot be treated as FIR – Non mention of names of assailants by constable not fatal. (Thaman Kumar Vs State of Union Territory of Chandigarh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 174 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 142 (S.C.)
FIR – A report which discloses the commission of a cognizable offence to be treated as FIR – It does not matter whether the person lodging the report had witnessed the commission of the offence or not – It is also not necessary that all details should be mentioned in the report about the manner of occurrence, the participants in the crime, the time and place of occurrence etc. (Hem Raj & Anr. Vs State of Punjab ) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 138 (S.C.)
FIR – Delay – By itself not a ground for throwing the entire prosecution case overboard – If delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court it cannot be counted against the prosecution. (Sunil Vs State of Kerala) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 462 (Kerala)
FIR – Delay – By itself not fatal to prosecution case if delay is explained to satisfaction of Court – Rape taking place in night but reported to police next day after lapse of over 12 hours – As there was no person in house except younger sister of victim, it was only next day they could report it to police – Case cannot be disbelieved merely on ground of delay. (H.Chandrakanth & Anr. Vs State of Karnataka) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 297 (Karnataka)
FIR – Delay – Court has to look at the reason why there was a delay – There can be too many reasons (i) rural people might be ignorant of the need for informing the police of a crime without any lapse of time and it is also not too uncommon among urban people also; (ii) lack of adequate transport facilities for the informers to reach the police station; (iii) kith and kind of deceased might take some appreciable time to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind or sedativeness of temper for moving to the police station; (iv) Persons who are supposed to give such information themselves could be so physically impaired that the police had to reach them on getting some nebulous information about the incident (v) There can be no exhaustive catalogue of instances which could cause delay in lodging the FIR. (Ravinder Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 41 (S.C.)
FIR – Delay – Explanation – Fist and leg blows given to victim in stomach – No injury visible – Serious notice not taken and report not lodged with police – Next day doctor found serious injuries in the stomach – Thus there was delay of two days in lodging FIR – Held, delay properly explained. (Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 303 (P&H)
FIR – Delay – FIR cannot be vitiated merely on the ground of delay – In any case where there is delay in making the FIR the Court is to look at the causes for it and if such causes are not attributable to any effort to concoct a version no consequence shall be attached to the mere delay in lodging the FIR. (Ravinder Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 41 (S.C.)
FIR – Delay – Incident in the night – FIR lodged in the morning – Plea that those days the terrorists were active in the State of Punjab – Not acceptable as assailants were not members of a terrorist group but were members of the family of his brother’s wife. (State of Punjab Vs Ajaib Singh & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 241 (S.C.)
FIR – Delay – Mere delay, in itself, not fatal unless it can be associated with an attempt to fabricate or falsely implicate. (State of Karnataka Vs Jagadisha) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 125 (Karnataka)
FIR – Delay – Mere delay in lodging FIR is of no consequence, if the reason is explained. (Sri Narayan Saha & Anr. Vs State of Tripura) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 638 (S.C.)
FIR – Delay – Not fatal in all cases – However when there are other suspicious circumstances, it assumes importance. (Ashok Kumar Vs State of Bihar) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 18 (S.C.)
FIR – Delay – Occurrence at around 11 p.m. – Information given at police chowk at 8.00 a.m. next day and FIR lodged at 9.35 a.m. and it reached the Magistrate at 3.00 p.m. As the area was terrorist infected area and terrorism was at its peak during the period as such it cannot be said that there was delay in lodging FIR. (State of Punjab Vs Karnail Singh) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 298 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 519 (S.C.)
FIR – Delay – Police duly informed – Two days delay in registering the case due to ignorance and negligence on part of police – No allegation that accused were roped in and a false case was foisted upon them – Delay in lodging report before the police has not caused any serious prejudice to accused nor did it cast any doubt on the prosecution case – Accused convicted. (State of Rajasthan Vs Maharaj Singh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 421 (S.C.)
FIR – Delay – Rape case – Delay of 6 days – Matter first reported to Panchayat – FOR lodged when no action taken by Panchayat – It is sufficient explanation for delay – In a rape case honour of family is involved – Its members have to decide whether to take the matter to Court or not and such like considerations naturally cause some delay in lodging the FIR. (Islam Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 445 (P&H)
FIR – Delay – There cannot be any generalization that whenever there is a delay in lodging FIR, the prosecution case becomes suspect – Whether delay is so long as to throw a cloud of suspicion on the seeds of the prosecution case, would depend upon the facts of each case – Even a long delay can be condoned if the witnesses have no motive of implicating the accused and have given a plausible reason as to why the report was lodged belatedly. (Harbans Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 570 (S.C.)
FIR – Delay – Victim was first taken to Hospital to save his life – No adverse inference can be drawn against prosecution. (Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs State of Delhi) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 429 (S.C.)
FIR – Delay in FIR in sex offence – Delay must be explained satisfactorily. (Shankar Singh & Anr. Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 110 (Rajasthan)
FIR – Delay of 5 hours – FIR lodged by father of deceased – Father used Public conveyance to reach police station though he owned a tractor – It caused 5 hours of delay – No adverse inference can be drawn – Frame of mind of father cannot be lost sight of whose son was murdered. (State of Punjab Vs Pohla Singh & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 330 (S.C.)
FIR – Delay of more than one day in lodging FIR – Mere delay in lodging FIR is not fatal in all cases – However on the circumstances of the instant case, certainly it is one of the factors which corrodes credibility of the prosecution version. (State of Rajasthan Vs Bhanwar Singh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 407 (S.C.)
FIR – Delay of two days in lodging FIR – By itself not a ground to throw out the prosecution case when it was otherwise proved by evidence which could not be doubted. (Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 375 (P&H)
FIR – Every detail is not to be mentioned and the first information report is not the last word. (Mahesh Chand Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 166 (Rajasthan)
FIR – Forgery – Mere pendency of civil litigation not a bar to the registration of an FIR. (Makhan Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 413 (P&H)
FIR – Incident 10.30 P.M. – FIR lodged at 8.00 A.M. next morning – Police station at a distance of eight miles – Late lodging of FIR left sufficient scope for concoction and deliberation. (Ram Jatan Vs State of U.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 403 (Allahabad)
FIR – Incident 4.00 p.m. – FIR lodged next day at 12.00 noon – Brother murdered – Informant might have taken appreciable time to regain tranquility of mind for lodging the information at the police station – Police station at a distance of 10 kilometers and there was no transport facility – Delay sufficiently explained. (Padarath Dhanuk & Ors. Vs Upendra Dhanuk & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 326 (Patna)
FIR – Incident took place at 1.30 p.m. and complaint lodged at 3.15 a.m on the next day – Though police station was at a distance of 30 miles from place of incident but complainant had the facility of using the tractor available in the village and he did use the same for travelling to the Police Station – Held, unexplained long delay creates a doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution case. (Shankarlal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 578 (S.C.)
FIR – Is not a substantive piece of evidence – It may be used to corroborate the informant u/s 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict him under S.145 of Evidence Act in case the informant appears as witness at the trial. (Bandu Yedu Metkari Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 592 (Bombay)
FIR – Law has not fixed any time for lodging the FIR. (Ravinder Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 41 (S.C.)
FIR – Merely because the accused was not named in the first information report, though he was known to some of the prosecution witnesses, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for not naming such an accused in the first information report. (Dana Yadav @ Dahu & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 706 (S.C.) : 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 145 (S.C.)
FIR – Minute details are not required to be recorded in the FIR. (Lotan & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 51 (Rajasthan)
FIR – Neither the names of eye witnesses mentioned nor it was stated as to which accused inflicted injury on the person of deceased – Even motive behind murder not disclosed – Held, it is not the requirement of law that minute details be recorded in the FIR lodged. (Lotan & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 51 (Rajasthan)
FIR – Not a encyclopaedia – A little variance as regards facts should not be a cause to discard the same. (State of Orissa Vs Bharat Jena) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 294 (Orissa)
FIR – Not a substantive piece of evidence – FIR can be used for the purpose of contradiction or corroboration only – Unless and until the statements made in FIR are corroborated by the maker of it by way of adducing evidence at the time of trial, statements made in FIR cannot be considered in judging the guilt of an accused person. (Ashoke Giri & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 314 (Calcutta)
FIR – Not a substantive piece of evidence – It cannot be made use of but for the corroborating and confronting the maker of the same. (Tarachand Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 327 (Raj.)
FIR – Not a substantive piece of evidence and can be used only to corroborate the statement of maker or to contradict him – No requirement of law that minutest details were to be recorded in it. (Ravi Kumar Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 511 (S.C.)
FIR – Occurrence took place on 16.12.1997 at 5.30 p.m. – Police station at a distance of 6 Kms. from the spot – FIR recorded at 8.20 p.m. and it reached Illaqa Magistrate at 1.00 a.m. on 17.12.1997 – There is no delay in lodging FIR. (Mohinder Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 393 (P&H)
FIR – Omission as to part played by accused – Later in evidence witnesses specifying the acts of the accused persons – Accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. (Debi Prasad Panda Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 409 (Orissa)
FIR – Prompt and immediate lodging – Purpose is two fold (i) that it affords commencement of the investigation without any time lapse (ii) It expels the opportunity for any possible concoction of a false version. (Ravinder Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 41 (S.C.)
FIR – Registration and investigation – Same does not violate fundamental right of accused. (Mohd. Zakir Hussain Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 641 (P&H)
FIR – Second FIR of same occurrence – Can be lodged if the allegations in second FIR are not identical with earlier FIR and disclose a different offence. (Mohd. Zakir Hussain Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 641 (P&H)
FIR – Suicide by jumping into canal – Information received a day earlier to lodging of FIR – Held, FIR was lodged after a delay of one day, which could have been utilised to create a false story. (Hardev Singh @ Gurdev Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 275 (P&H)
FIR – Telephone message – Cryptic and anonymous – Cannot be treated as FIR. (Kailash Kumar @ Kalji & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 310 (Rajasthan)
FIR – Telephonic conversation in cryptic information received and recorded in daily dairy regrading commission of offence, cannot be treated as an FIR. (Lotan & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 51 (Rajasthan)
FIR – When actual scribe not examined it creates doubt about the date and time of lodging of the report. (Gabbu & Ors. Vs State of M.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 335 (M.P.)
FIR – When FIR does not appear to be a genuine document and brought into existence in ante time and ante date after due consultation and there was no proof of compliance of provisions of S.157 Cr.P.C. prosecution case will be viewed with doubt. (Gabbu & Ors. Vs State of M.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 335 (M.P.)
FIR – Written complaint – When it discloses a cognizable offence, it is statutory duty of police officer to register a case and then to proceed with investigation – Police officer cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information is genuine and reliable and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable and credible. (Katteri Moideen Kutty Haji Vs State of Kerala) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 46 (Ker.)
FIR lodged by accused himself – FIR being neither a confession nor a statement made to a police officer during the course of investigation, its admissibility is not barred either by S.25 of Evidence Act or by S.162 Cr.P.C. – FIR is admissible in evidence. (Ashok Raghuvanshi Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 692 (Rajasthan)
Incident took place at 4 p.m. and FIR lodged at 6.30 p.m. – Police station four miles away from place of incident – PW1 went to police station through different villages so as to avoid risk to his life – It cannot be said that there is delay in lodging FIR. (State of Punjab Vs Hardan Singh & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 467 (S.C.)
Prompt registration of FIR is not an unmistakable guarantee for the truthfulness of the prosecution version and neither is delay fatal to the case. (Kuldip Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 104 (P&H)
Rape – FIR – Two days delay in lodging FIR – Rape victims are reluctant to report the matter to police immediately for the fear of reputation and also for the fear that it may mar the chances of marriage of a young girl who has been subjected to sexual assault – Prompt registration of FIR is not an unmistakable guarantee for the truthfulness of the prosecution version and neither is delay fatal to the case – Delay of two days does not affect the case of prosecution. (Kuldip Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 104 (P&H)
Second FIR – Where offences reported are different, investigation made on basis of second FIR cannot be held invalid just because persons alleged to be involved in commission of offences are same. (Dr.N.Nagamabikadevi Vs Central Bureau of Investigation) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 255 (Karnataka)
Two FIRs – There cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in respect of the same case – But when there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency. (Kari Choudhary Vs Most.Sita Devi) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 565 (S.C.)
FIR – Complaint of cognizable offence – Police Officer has to register the crime and investigate – Police Officer cannot hold an enquiry whether information is genuine or not and cannot refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. (Katteri Moideen Kutty Haji Vs State of Kerala) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 348 (A.P.)
FIR – Constable has no authority to record FIR – An officer in charge of police station or police officer who is next in rank to such officer alone can record FIR disclosing cognizable offence. (Rajesh Namdeo Mhatre Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 55 (Bom.)
Cognizable offence disclosed in FIR or complaint – Arrest of accused is not a must – Police Officer in the matter of arrest is to be guided by decision of Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar’s case, 1994 Crl.L.J. 1981. (Smt.Amarawati & Anr. Vs State of U.P.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 86 (Allahabad)
FIR – Need not disclose all details relating to alleged offence but it should disclose that offence alleged is either cognizable or non cognizable. (Korra Srinivas Rao Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 633 (Bombay)
Complaint to police – If it discloses cognizable offence then SHO is bound to register FIR – In case of doubt SHO can first check the information in a summary manner and inform the complainant of his decision – Erroneous decision of SHO can be corrected by S.P. or Magistrate. (Mithlesh Kumari Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 451 (P&H)
Investigation – Police officer who had recorder FIR naming himself as informant can proceed with investigation – Such investigation can only be assailed on the ground of bias or real likelihood of bias on the part of investigating officer. (Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption Vs V.Jayapaul) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 486 (S.C.)
FIR on his own report by a Police Officer – Investigation by same Police Officer – Investigation not vitiated for such reason unless it is shown that Police Officer has personal prejudice against accused in registering case and investigating into it, or is not competent to investigate case. (Jayaram Vs State) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 714 (Karnataka)
Cross case – FIR lodged against accused – If accused has different version of same incident he can lodge counter complaint – If police refuse to register counter complaint, it is open to Magistrate to direct Police to register complaint and investigate. (Upkar Singh Vs Ved Prakash) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 726 (S.C.)
FIR – Head constable who is next in rank to Sub Inspector and is above rank of Constable, is deemed to be officer-in-charge of police station in absence of Sub Inspector, and as such he is competent to register FIR, make investigation and submit his final investigation report to Magistrate – Objection regarding competence of such Head Constable to investigate cannot be permitted to be raised. (State By Thippagondanahalli Police Station Vs Chikkabala Naika) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 203 (Karnataka)
Complaint to police – SHO refusing to register FIR – Complainant approaching Magistrate to direct Police to register case – Magistrate calling upon complainant to bring preliminary evidence – Held, order of Magistrate is valid. (Mithlesh Kumari Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 451 (P&H)
Rape – Delay in lodging FIR and delay in FIR reaching Court – Not a ground to reject the prosecution case unless there is a material to show that the delay has been caused by the prosecution to implicate accused falsely. (Rajendran & Ors. Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 290 (Madras)
Delay in FIR and its despatch to Magistrate – Delay in FIR cannot in every case be ground for throwing entire prosecution case – Only unexplained delay is fatal – Delay contemplated in S.157 for doubting authenticity of FIR is not every delay but an extra ordinary and unexplained delay. (Ramdev, Dharamraj & Rampal Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 347 (Rajasthan)
FIR – Delay in lodging or sending it to Magistrate – If occular evidence is worthy of acceptance, the element of delay in registering a complaint or sending the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate by itself would not in any manner weaken the prosecution case. (Balram Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 119 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 370 (S.C.)
FIR – Delay in dispatching to Illaqa Magistrate – Delay in dispatch of FIR is not a substance which can throw out the prosecution case in its entirety. (Ravi Kumar Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 511 (S.C.)
Cryptic telephonic message – Cannot be treated as FIR – However, if telephonic message is not cryptic and on that basis officer in charge is prima facie satisfied about the commission of a cognizable offence and he proceeds from the police station after recording such information to investigate such offence, then any statement made by any person in respect of the said offence including about the participants shall be deemed to be a statement made by a person to the police officer in the course of investigation covered by S.162 of the Code. (Damodar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 361 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 567 (S.C.)
Information on telephone without details – Information is not first information but is statement made to police u/s 162 Cr.P.C. (Kishan Singh Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 237 (Raj.)
Two FIR’s containing each a different story in respect of same incident – One out of the two FIR’s should not be quashed. (Jugal Kishore & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 355 (Rajasthan)
Offence punishable u/s 354 IPC – Report lodged on the next day of occurrence – Some attempts were made to reconcile the issue and when the conciliations did not fructify the complaint was longed only after due deliberations – Possibility of implicating the innocent persons due to failure of such deliberations cannot be ruled out – One day’s delay in normal circumstances is not vital but in the circumstances of the present case there is every possibility to introduce some body like P.W.3, to strengthen the case of the prosecution. (Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Vs Nammi Narayana) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 323 (A.P.)
Case diary – Fact recorded therein – Cannot be used as evidence – Case diary prepared by I.O. cannot be evidence to impeach credibility of any witness unless it is proved by I.O. – Fact recorded in case diary cannot be used as evidence. (Aneeta Bhatnagar Jain Vs State of U.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 320 (Allahabad)
When offences for which case is registered is non-cognizable, then police officer has to necessarily obtain warrant under Section 155 Cr.P.C. before arresting the accused. (J.Vanaraj Vs State) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 443 (Madras)
Murder – Investigation by CBI – Ghastly murder – Accused not traced – Investigation does not seem to have been carried out with a reasonable intelligent perception by looking into all the pros and cons – However, no allegation of lack of bona fide on part of investigating agency – Prayer to hand over investigation to CBI not accepted – Director General of Police directed to constitute a Special Investigating Team which should be headed by an IPS Officer from the Crime Branch with another member not below the rank of DSP from Intelligence Wing who will also associate the local police, to investigate the case. (Raj Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 341 (P&H)
Murder of six persons – SSP alleged to be not conducting investigation fairly and thoroughly due to political influence – Allegation of involvement of Minister also – Investigation entrusted to Additional Director General of Police to instil confidence in minds of complainant party – In a case where six murders have taken place, the Police is duty bound to conduct the investigation in such a manner so as not to arouse any suspicion in the mind of the complainant party. (Nau Nihal Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 12 (P&H)
Complaint – Dismissal for default – Convincing reasons for absence of complainant before lower Court on the particular day – It was wrong on the part of lower Court to acquit accused for non appearance of complainant when substantial rights of parties are involved – Impugned order set aside. (Sri Chakara Finance Vs K.Senguttuvan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 262 (Madras)
Informant who lodged FIR not examined – Does not affect prosecution case – Case depends upon other evidence led by prosecution – Accused convicted though informant not examined. (Krishna Mochi & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 190 (S.C.)
Non examination of I.O. – Not fatal unless it is shown that the accused is prejudiced thereby. (Krishna Mochi & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 190 (S.C.)
Referring complaint for investigation by police – Only an incharge of police station can be directed to conduct such investigation and not a superior police officer – Superior police officer can however exercise such power by virtue of S.36 of the Code. (Pushparaj Vs Subbanna & Ors.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 475 (Kant.)
Specimen handwriting – Magistrate can always issue directions to the accused to give his specimen handwriting when the case is under investigation. (Parveen Kumar Vs Union Territory, Chandigarh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 724 (P&H)
Scope of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and that of complaint are different. (Surya Nath Yadav Vs State of U.P. & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 356 (Allahabad)
Complaint to police – SHO not registering FIR – Complainant should first exhaust remedy of approaching Magistrate before approaching High Court under S.482 Cr.P.C. – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not a routine remedy, but is conferred to rare cases presenting special features. (Mithlesh Kumari Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 451 (P&H)
Application u/s 156(3) – Rejection by Magistrate – Sessions Judge in revision directed Magistrate to pass appropriate order directing police to register and investigate the case – Order upheld. (Ram Singh & Ors. Vs State of U.P.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 331 (Allahabad)
Once the Court takes cognizance, it is not open to the Court to refer the case to police for investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. (Mahesh Kumar K.S. Vs State of Karnataka) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 77 (Karnataka)
Magistrate has no jurisdiction u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. to make direction for investigation by any police officer other than the officer in-charge of Police Station. (Shahid Akhtar Vs State of U.P. & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 764 (Allahabad)
Application for direction to police to register FIR and investigate the case – Magistrate ordered application to be registered in the Court as a criminal complaint and fixed date for recording statement of the complainant – Held, Magistrate rightly passed the order as the complainant is in possession of the complete details of all the accused as well as the witnesses who have to be examined and neither recovery is needed nor any such material evidence is requited to be collected which can be done only by the police – No “investigation” would normally be required and the procedure of complaint case should be adopted. (Gulab Chand Upadhyaya Vs State of U.P. & Ors.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 302 (Allahabad)
Application for direction to police to register FIR and investigate – Can be ordered when: (1) full details of the accused are not known to the complainant and the same can be determined only as a result of investigation; (2) where recovery of abducted person or stolen property is required to be made by conducting raids or searches of suspected places or persons; (3) where for the purpose of launching a successful prosecution of the accused, evidence is required to be collected and preserved e.g. (a) sample of blood soaked soil is to be taken and kept sealed for fixing the place of incident; (b) recovery of case property is to be made and kept sealed; (c) recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act; (d) preparation of inquest report; (e) witnesses are not known and have to be found out or discovered through the process of investigation. (Gulab Chand Upadhyaya Vs State of U.P. & Ors.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 302 (Allahabad)
Application u/s 156(3) cannot be ordered to be registered as complaint – Scope of application u/s 156(3) and that of complaint are different. (Shyam Lal Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 08 (Allahabad)
Application u/s 156(3) cannot be treated as a complaint. (Surya Nath Yadav Vs State of U.P. & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 356 (Allahabad)
Complaint – Order as to investigation by police – Magistrate is empowered to direct investigation by police officer incharge of Police Station to investigate cognizable offence with which such Magistrate has jurisdiction and it does not empower the Magistrate to refer complaint to CB-CID for investigation. (Adusumili Raji Rao Vs State of A.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 445 (A.P.)
Complaint – Reference to police for investigation – Before taking cognizance or referring the matter for investigation to police, Magistrate should satisfy himself regarding the allegations in the complaint as to what the complainant is alleging and it should be within his personal knowledge. (P.R.Venugopal Vs S.M.Krishna) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 634 (Karnataka)
Court taking cognizance of offence – Thereafter it is not open to the Court to refer the case to police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (Mahesh Kumar K.S. Vs State of Karnataka) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 593 (Karnataka)
Public servant – Complaint under Prevention of Corruption Act – Forwarded to Vigilance Officer for investigation – Vigilance Officer is not bound to register a case immediately on receipt of complaint – Crime to be registered only when preliminary enquiry reveals prima facie offence of guilt – If on preliminary enquiry allegations are found baseless then there is no need to register a crime – However, a report must be sent and on consideration of the report, Court can drop the proceedings. (Biju C.Vallavanadan Vs State of Kerala) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 651 (Kerala)
Special Judge – Being a Court of original criminal jurisdiction as such can forward a private complaint to the police for investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before taking cognizance of the offence. (Sreekumar S.Menon Vs State of Kerala) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 682 (Kerala)
Complainant – Police Officer on whose information crime is registered – Not de facto complainant – He cannot be debarred from carrying out investigation – Real complainant is the victim of the crime – Victim of the crime is the de facto complainant or the person who sets the criminal law into motion – The de jure complainant is always the State for all practical purposes. (The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Vs Mohd.Mansoor alias Abu Khafa) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 108 (A.P.)
Complaint – Sent to Police for investigation – Receipt of police report – Magistrate can (i) drop action (ii) May take cognizance of offence; (iii) may examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and may hold or direct an inquiry u/s 202 and thereafter to issue process or to dismiss complaint. (Mohd. Zakir Hussain Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 641 (P&H)
Complaint – Magistrate directed police to investigate and submit a report – Accused has no locus standi to seek quashing of the order at pre-summoning stage – An accused person does not come into the picture at all till process is issued. (Grow-On Exports (India) Ltd. Vs J.K.Goel) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 664 (Delhi)
Complaint – Without recording preliminary evidence Magistrate can send the complaint to police for investigation – If Magistrate takes cognizance by recording preliminary evidence he may still refer the complaint to police u/s 202 Cr.P.C. (Karnail Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 44 (P&H)
Cognizance by Magistrate – Complaint – Complaint sent to police for investigation – Police after investigation sending its final report stating complaint to be false – Magistrate can take cognizance of offence – Investigation is the exclusive domain of the police – Taking of cognizance of the offence is an area exclusively within the domain of a Magistrate – Prima facie case to be seen – Sufficient evidence/grounds leading to conviction not main factor as they have to be seen at the time of trial and not at the time of inquiry – Well reasoned order by Magistrate upheld. (Jagdish Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 520 (S.C.)
FIR under investigation – Complaint of the same incident – Magistrate without taking cognizance sent the complaint to Police for registration of FIR and investigation – No illegal infirmity and no bar – Bar is created by S.210 Cr.P.C. in case where Magistrate has taken cognizance and has already proceeded to hold an enquiry or trial on the basis of complaint. (Mai Ram Vs State of Haryana & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 425 (P&H)
Bride burning – Evidence shows that deceased did not commit suicide but was burnt by her husband and in-laws – Challan however put up u/s 306 IPC – S.P. Crime directed to re-investigate the case. (Hari Pal Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 375 (P&H)
Police report u/s 173(1) – Magistrate is not bound by the conclusions drawn by police and he may decide to issue process even if the police recommends that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further. (Jogendranath Gharei & Ors. Vs State of Orissa & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 570 (Orissa)
Further investigation – Sanction – Court cannot compel or give direction to sanctioning authority of granting sanction for prosecution – Special Judge can direct further investigation by the same agency but not by a particular officer. (State of Kerala Vs Sudhir) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 327 (Kerala)
Complaint – Magistrate after recording statement of complainant ordered investigation by Police u/s 156(3) and register the offence – Order not illegal – Mere examination of complainant does not mean that Magistrate has taken cognizance in a case filed upon complaint. (Harbhajan Singh Vs State of M.P.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 286 (M.P.)
Complaint u/s 120-B, 420, 464, 465, 467 and 471 IPC – Prior to taking cognizance order of investigation made – Order cannot be interfered exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 on mere possibility of operation of bar u/s 195 Cr.P.C. (B.S.Khatri Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 128 (Bombay)
Complaint – Direction to police to investigate – Before taking cognizance and on a plain reading of complaint if facts constitute an offence, Magistrate can direct police to investigate – Investigation by police cannot be interfered with in exercise of Court’s inherent powers. (Laxmana Reddy Vs Police Inspector, Peenya Police Station) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 509 (Karnataka)
Complaint – Police investigation – Offence exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions – Even then Magistrate can forward a complaint to police for investigation u/s 156(3). (Salim Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 184 (Kerala)
Delay in sending FIR to Magistrate – No question asked to the I.O. regarding delay in sending FIR to Magistrate and defence having no case that any prejudice was caused by that delay – FIR not given by an eyewitness – Delay, if any, in sending FIR to Magistrate not a ground for acquittal of accused. (Anirudhan Vs State of Kerala) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 358 (Kerala)
Delay of 3 hours in sending FIR to Magistrate – Reason for delay to be put to I.O. who is in a position to explain the delay – Without seeking for a response from the investigating officer, it is not open to say that there was delay in sending the report – An adverse inference would be drawn in respect of a matter for which no explanation is sought for from the relevant witnesses. (State of Punjab Vs Pohla Singh & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 330 (S.C.)
FIR at 5.50 p.m. – Report sent to Magistrate on the same day at 7 p.m. – Constable through whom report was sent to Magistrate reported for duty at 8 a.m. on next day – Report received by Magistrate on next day but actual time of the report not noted – Police station at a distance of 28-29 kms. – Held, from the circumstances it is clear that report had reached the Judicial Magistrate much earlier than 8 O’Clock in the morning – Held, as the report was sent from police station in the evening on the same day it was recorded as such it cannot be said that FIR is anti-timed. (Jai Sree Yadav Vs State of U.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 28 (S.C.)
FIR – Delay in despatch to Court – By itself not a ground for throwing out the prosecution case if otherwise the same is proved by unimpeachable evidence – However, in cases where court otherwise doubts veracity of the prosecution case, this may be taken to be one of the grounds to discard the same. (Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs State of Delhi) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 429 (S.C.)
FIR – Delay in dispatching to Illaqa Magistrate – Prosecution to explain the delay – If delay is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawn but failure to explain the delay would require the Court to minutely examine the prosecution version for ensuring itself as to whether any innocent person has been implicated in the crime or not. (Ravi Kumar Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 511 (S.C.)
FIR – Delay in sending FIR to Magistrate – Adverse inference cannot be drawn in absence of this question put to I.O. – Had this been done, I.O. could have explained the circumstances. (Sunil Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 164 (S.C.)
FIR – Delay in sending to Magistrate – When occular evidence is worthy of acceptance, delay in sending FIR to Magistrate concerned does not in any way affect prosecution case. (Kumar @ Kumarasamy & Ors. Vs State) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 714 (Madras)
FIR – Delay of six days in sending FIR to Magistrate – FI statement containing only a brief statement of events – If FIR had been prepared later after the inquest and post mortem were over, many more matters could have been incorporated in the FIR – Absence of any further details in the FIR shows its genuineness and the delay probably would have happened due to some other reason which the I.O. was not given any opportunity to explain. (Sahdeo & Ors. Vs State of U.P.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 455 (S.C.)
FIR – Delayed receipt in office of Magistrate – Does not ipso facto warrant conclusion about FIR to be tainted document. (Binod Prasad Vs State of Bihar) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 640 (Patna)
FIR – Sending copy to Magistrate – Delay – If reasonable, plausible and sufficient explanation is tendered, no adverse inference can be drawn against it – Failure to explain delay requires the Court to minutely examine the prosecution version for ensuring itself as to whether any innocent person has been implicated in the crime or not. (Bijoy Singh Vs State of Bihar) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 382 (S.C.)
FIR – Delay in sending copy of FIR to Ilaqa Magistrate – By itself does not render the entire prosecution case doubtful but would put the Court on guard – In the instant case FIR recorded without delay and investigation started on the basis of FIR immediately as such delay in sending copy of report to Ilaqa Magistrate cannot by itself justify the conclusion that investigation was tainted. (Kailash Kumar @ Kalji & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 310 (Rajasthan)
Attendance of accused – Police cannot make an order requiring attendance of accused – Provision applies only to the cases of persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case i.e. the witnesses – However, police officers are fully authorised to require personal attendance of the suspects during investigation. (State Rep. by Inspector of Police & Woman accused – Can be called to Police Station for investigation – There is no requirement that woman accused should not be brought to police station and that they must be enquired only by woman police or in the presence of woman police at the place where they reside. (State Rep. by Inspector of Police & Ors. Vs N.M.T.Joy Immaculate) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 669 (S.C.)
Prosecution witness can only be contradicted with statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. – Defence witness cannot be contradicted or corroborated either by prosecution or defence with aid of a statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. (State of Kerala Vs Ramachandran) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 534 (Kerala)
A portion of evidence not consistent with statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and witness declared hostile – There cannot be total rejection of the evidence – Portion which is in favour of the prosecution or the accused may be accepted but the same shall be subject to close scrutiny. (Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 128 (S.C.)
Delay in recording statement of eye witnesses – Not fatal. (Ramdev, Dharamraj & Rampal Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 347 (Rajasthan)
Dying declaration – Made by deceased to witnesses – Not disclosed by witnesses in their statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. – Disclosed for the first time in Court – Raises some doubts as to the veracity of said fact. (Khalil Khan Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 393 (S.C.)
Eye witness examined by police on 27.11.1979 whereas occurrence took place on 15.10.1979 – No reliance can be placed on the evidence of such a witness. (State of U.P. Vs Gambhir Singh & Ors.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 677 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 835 (S.C.)
Mere contradiction with police statement of witness is no admission of prosecution case if contents of such contradictions are denied in substantive evidence. (Lingu S/o Dharma Meshram Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 551 (Bombay)
Non furnishing of some of the statements or some part of the statements of the same witnesses – Vitiates the trial and the accused will be denied a fair trial – Denial of fair trial necessarily prejudices the accused to have a proper defence – Accused acquitted on this reason itself. (Murali Vs State of Kerala) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 386 (Kerala)
Omission to record certain evidence – It would not amount to rejection of evidence of witness which is otherwise creditworthy and acceptable evidence. (Alamgir Vs State (NCT, Delhi)) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 66 (S.C.)
Recording of statement after two days of incident – Merely because statement is recorded after two days, does not detract from the credibility of the witness. (Babu Ram & Ors. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 35 (S.C.) : 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 216 (S.C.)
Statement if not correctly recorded by Police even then it can be got recorded before the Court at the time of trial – In that eventuality, statement before the Police would have no meaning at all. (Nau Nihal Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 12 (P&H)
Statement of witness not examined during investigation – When prosecution had no explanation why his statement was not recorded, witness could not be relied upon. (Gabbu & Ors. Vs State of M.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 335 (M.P.)
Statement of witnesses not recorded forthwith – Prosecution version does not become suspect. (Lotan & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 51 (Rajasthan)
Statement of witness not recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. – Statement made during Police investigation is not substantive evidence and such statements can be challenged at the time of examination of the witnesses in Court with reference to the statements made by them during investigation as these are earlier in point of time – Evidence is to be seen and weighed as actually adduced in Court – There is no material irregularity in recording the statement of such a witness in Court who is a witness of recovery after disclosure statement. (Jaswant Singh alias Jassa Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 643 (P&H)
Statement of witnesses recorded during investigation – Cannot be treated as substantive evidence except that it can be used for the purpose of omission or contradiction. (Natabar Aunria Vs State of Orissa) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 531 (Orissa)
Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. is not required to be recorded in the language known to the person giving the statement. (Zahira Habibulla H.Sheikh & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 195 (S.C.)
Unexplained and unjustified long delay in recording statement of material eye witnesses during investigation – Renders evidence of such witness unreliable. (Bhalchandra Namdeo Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 193 (Bombay)
Version u/s 161 – Deliberate change during trial to suit medical evidence – Change cannot be said to be accidental on account of lapse of memory – Credibility of eye witnesses impeached. (Shingara Singh Vs State of Haryana & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 68 (S.C.)
Cross examination of witness with previous statement – There is no prohibition imposed by S.145 for contradicting the witness from his previous statement recorded otherwise than during investigation under S.162 Cr.P.C. (Jagdish Chamriya Barela Vs State of M.P.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 361 (M.P.)
Omission to make a statement in terms of S.161 – Amounts to contradiction only if the same is significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs – Omission whether amounts to contradiction in a particular context is a question of fact. (Shri Gopal & Anr. Vs Subhash & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 37 (S.C.)
Fast tract Court – Accused is entitled to the statement of informant (complainant) who is a material witness in the case – Accused can also seek amendment of charge by making an application. (Suresh Kumar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 152 (All.)
‘Contradiction’ – All omissions are not contradictions – Omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant or otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which the omission occurs. (Shashidhar Purandhar Hegde & Anr. Vs State of Karnataka) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 716 (S.C.)
Dying declaration – Declarant with burn injuries brought to hospital and at time of admission cause of burns recorded as “accidental” – Subsequent recording of dying declaration before 24 hours of death, implicating her husband and her mother-in-law as persons who set her on fire – Charges framed on basis of dying declaration – Dying declaration not containing doctor’s certificate that declarant was mentally fit and balanced to make such statement – Evidence of independent witnesses suggesting that declaration may not be true – Held, where evidentiary value of dying declaration has been watered down considerably, in absence of any other evidence to corroborate it, such dying declaration cannot be made sole basis of conviction. (State By Circle Police Inspector, Ranebennur Vs Basavaraj) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 192 (Kant.)
Specimen handwriting – During investigation – Direction of Court to accused to give handwriting in course of investigation to enable investigating agency to compare such writing – Can be made under provision of S.164 Cr.P.C. – Section 73 of Evidence Act is no impediment – Handwriting opinion so obtained during investigation can be read into evidence despite the bar created by S.73 of Evidence Act. (Sanjay Goel Vs State of U.P.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 439 (All.)
Murder – Evidence of witnesses whose statements are recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is to be assessed with caution and if there are circumstances on record which lend support to the truth of the evidence of such witnesses, it can be acted upon – In the instant case, statements of PWs believed because their presence at the time of incident was not doubted. (Ramesh Singh @ Photti Vs State of A.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 674 (S.C.)
Rape – Statement of victim before Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before her medical examination – Held, there is no law that the victim of rape should be first medico-legally examined and then she should be produced before Magistrate for recording her statement. (Krishan Vs Sardaras) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 152 (P&H)
Confession – Statement u/s 108 of Customs Act – Custom Officer need not to follow the safeguard of S.164 Cr.P.C. – Entire idea behind this provision is that the officer questioning the person must gather all the truth concerning the episode – If for instance the statement so extracted is untrue, its utility for further investigation gets lost. (Mohinder Singh alias Minda Vs Inspector Customs) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 475 (P&H)
Abduction and rape – Statement of prosecutrix before Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C. – There is no such law that the victim of rape should be first medico-legally examined, then she should be produced before Magistrate for recording her statement. (Kala alias Krishan Pal Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 436 (P&H)
Confession – It must be proved that the same was voluntarily made by the maker – It would, of course, be necessary in every case to put the questions prescribed by the High Court circulars but the questions intended to be put under sub-section (2) of Section 164, should not be allowed to become a matter of a mere mechanical enquiry – No element of casualness should be allowed to creep in and the Magistrate should be fully satisfied that the confessional statement which the accused wants in fact and in substance voluntary. (Ayyub etc. Vs State of U.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 485 (S.C.)
Abduction and rape – Statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. that she was major and went with accused of her own accord – Bail granted. (Kala alias Krishan Pal Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 436 (P&H)
Magistrate is not required to satisfy that the person making the statement is not under any pressure of the police or of the accused or that he was making statement voluntarily – Time at which the person whose statement was to be recorded need not be recorded nor it is required to record that sufficient time to make up his mind to give statement voluntarily without any fear or pressure was given – Only requirement is that statement is to be required as an ordinary witness on oath. (Kala alias Krishan Pal Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 436 (P&H)
Merely because statement of witnesses is recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that does not automatically dilute the worth of his evidence. (N.Somashekar (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs State of Karnataka) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 265 (S.C.)
Recording statement unsponsored by Investigating Agency – Held, A Magistrate cannot directly record the statement of a person unsponsored by the Investigating agency. (State Vs P.Seshagiri Rao & Anr.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 317 (A.P.)
Search – Can be made by a Police Officer if a case is already registered and search is to be made for particular thing or specified material necessary for purpose of investigation – General search is not permissible – Police Officer must record reasons for not joining independent witnesses and failure to do so may in the facts and circumstances of the case vitiate trial. (Kiran Lata Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 217 (P&H)
Appellant involved in a murder in Canada – Canadian Authorities requested Govt. of India to obtain sample of blood and record statement of accused on voluntary basis – Accused refused to do so – Court cannot compel appellant to make statement and give his blood sample under compulsion which was not the request of Canadian Authorities. (Narinder Singh Bogarh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 403 (S.C.)
Charge sheet not filed within 90 days – Right to bail accrued but not availed – Charge sheet submitted – Accused lost his right to bail after submission of charge sheet. (Afzal Ibrahim Jariwala Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 847 (Bombay)
Police remand – High Court held it to be illegal and consequently confession and alleged recovery has no evidentiary value – Admissibility or otherwise of a piece of evidence has to be judged having regard to the provisions of Evidence Act – Effect of confession and also the recovery of the incriminating article at the pointing out of accused has to be examined strictly in accordance with the provisions of Evidence Act. (State Rep. by Inspector of Police & Ors. Vs N.M.T.Joy Immaculate) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 141 (S.C.)
Remand – Confession and recovery of incriminating articles from accused – Order of remand declared non est by High Court – Held, Confession and recovery does not lose evidentiary value – Effect of confession and also recovery of incriminating article at the pointing out of accused has to be examined strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. (State Rep. by Inspector of Police & Ors. Vs N.M.T.Joy Immaculate) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 669 (S.C.)
Offence u/s 306 IPC – Charge sheet not filed within sixty days from the date of arrest – Accused is entitled to bail. (Pralhad Vithal Giri Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 281 (Bombay)
Bail application u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. and charge sheet filed on the same day – Bail application heard on the next day and bail granted – No time mentioned as to at what time charge sheet was filed – From perusal of record, it is not clear whether charge sheet was filed prior to filing of bail application – It cannot be said that accused has not exercised his right before filing of charge-sheet – Order granting bail not interfered with. (State Vs Mangilal) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 183 (Rajasthan)
Bail u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. – Date on which cognizance is taken is not material – It is date on which investigation is completed and charge sheet filed, which is material. (Pradeep Kumar Deo & Anr. Vs State of Orissa) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 781 (Orissa)
Bail u/s 167(2) – Charge sheet filed within prescribed period with a mention “prayer for continuing investigation” – Further investigation was to probe if any other accused was involved – It cannot be said that charge sheet was incomplete – Order rejecting bail application suffers no illegality. (Pradeep Kumar Deo & Anr. Vs State of Orissa) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 781 (Orissa)
Bail – Charge sheet if not filed within time – Accused is entitled to be released on bail – Right is lost only if charge sheet is filed before availing of such right – If bail application of accused is adjourned and in the meantime charge sheet is filed, even then accused is entitled to bail – If charge sheet and bail application are filed on the same day and if charge sheet is subsequent in time to bail application, right of accused is not lost. (Gousemohiddin Vs State by Hangal Police) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 670 (Karnataka)
Charge sheet not filed within prescribed period – Accused moved application for release on bail – Charge sheet filed during pendency of bail application – Right accrued to accused cannot be frustrated by subsequent filing of charge sheet. (Rehemankha Kalukha Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 198 (Bom.)
Charge sheet when not filed within prescribed period – Accused has a right to be released on bail if he is prepared to and furnish the bail – If accused files an application for bail and offers also to furnish bail then it has to be held that the accused has availed of his indefeasible right even though Court has not considered his application and has not indicated the terms and conditions of bail and the accused has not furnished the same. (Rehemankha Kalukha Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 198 (Bom.)
Charge sheet when not filed within prescribed period – Accused is entitled to be released on bail – If accused is unable to furnish bail and in the meantime charge sheet is filed then right of accused to be released on bail is extinguished. (Rehemankha Kalukha Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 198 (Bom.)
Police custody – Limitation of 15 days – Applies only to investigation of a single case – Accused involved in a number of cases – Limitation of 15 days in whole for investigation applies to single case and is not attracted when accused is involved in series of different cases. (State by Stamp Investigation Team Vs Abdul Kareem Telgi @ Kareemlala) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 571 (Karnataka)
Charge sheet not filed for 90 days – On 91st day accused applying for bail – When accused availed of his right to be released on bail the same cannot be extinguished as a result of subsequent filing of the charge-sheet, before the Magistrate passed an order on the bail application – Magistrate cannot frustrate the right of accused by postponing the passing of order of bail. (Rehmankha Kalukha Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 237 (Bom.)
Charge sheet not filed within prescribed time – Bail granted on condition that accused to surrender when charge sheet is filed – Held, imposition of such condition is illegal – Once bail is granted on whatever ground, same can be cancelled only on considerations which are relevant for cancellation of bail – Filing of charge sheet by itself cannot amount to cancellation of bail, for which prosecution has to make out case separately. (J.Kennedy Paul Vs State by Yelahanka Police Station, Bangalore) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 14 (Kant.)
To avail benefit of the provision an application must be filed on expiry of period and before the filing of charge-sheet. (Omanakuttan Pillai Vs State of Kerala) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 313 (Kerala)
Remand – Order is interlocutory – Revision against such an order does not lie. (State Rep. by Inspector of Police & Ors. Vs N.M.T.Joy Immaculate) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 669 (S.C.)
Order of remand – It is an interlocutory order – Revision against such an order of remand is not maintainable. (State Rep. by Inspector of Police & Ors. Vs N.M.T.Joy Immaculate) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 141 (S.C.)
Remand – Order of remand if found to be illegal, it cannot result in acquittal of accused or in termination of proceedings. (State Rep. by Inspector of Police & Ors. Vs N.M.T.Joy Immaculate) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 141 (S.C.)
Illegal detention in police station and police personnel committing acts of molestation, obscene violation etc. – Compensation – There is absolutely no justification for awarding compensation to a person who is facing prosecution for a serious offence like murder even before trial has commenced. (State Rep. by Inspector of Police & Ors. Vs N.M.T.Joy Immaculate) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 141 (S.C.)
Bail – Recalling of – While releasing accused u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. Court can impose conditions – Merely because Court did not impose any such condition while granting bail, grant of bail cannot be considered as a totally illegal or arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion warranting cancellation of bail granted more than three years back. (Sri Prasanta Kumar Das Vs Republic of India & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 841 (Orissa)
Police investigating an office found that there is no evidence against accused to justify detention – Police Office Incharge of Police station shall release the accused on his executing a bond with or without surety – However when accused is produced before Magistrate then Magistrate has to release the accused from custody u/s 169 Cr.P.C. – Release from custody does not amount to discharge of accused. (Shoqin Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 226 (P&H)
Final report submitted – Magistrate if decides not to take cognizance and drop the proceedings it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to give notice to the informant i.e. complainant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report. (Dr.Kapil Garg Vs State) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 27 (Delhi)
Final report submitted – Where investigating agency recommends for closure of case on account of insufficiency of evidence or offence not having been made out, Magistrate is required to not only give reasons for not agreeing with report but also to refer to evidence and material on which he proposes to take cognizance. (Dr.Kapil Garg Vs State) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 27 (Delhi)
FIR u/s 494 IPC – Accused found innocent by police in investigation and submitted cancellation report – Report of police submitted u/ss 169 or 173 Cr.P.C. is not the final word – Magistrate can proceed on his own by recording preliminary evidence and then issue the process against the accused. (Pawan Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 200 (P&H)
Police submitting report after investigation – Magistrate not agreeing with report and ordered reinvestigation – Police investigating the case again and submitted report – Magistrate cannot order reinvestigation for the third time – If Magistrate does not agree with the opinion formed by the police and still suspects that an offence has been committed he can take cognizance u/s 190(1)(c) Cr.P.C. (Harinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 43 (P&H)
Illegal gratification – Trap witness and another independent witness not supporting prosecution – CBI submitted closure report after six years investigation – Special Judge directed CBI to re-investigate – Order set aside as there was no allegation that investigation was conducted in a hurried manner or the investigation was not fair. (Gian Parkash Sharma Vs Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 366 (P&H)
Defective investigation – Not a ground to acquit accused if case otherwise established. (Ramdev, Dharamraj & Rampal Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 347 (Rajasthan)
Final report by police that no case is made out – Magistrate has no power to direct police to submit charge sheet – Options available to Magistrate while disagreeing with final report are either to take cognizance of the offences u/s 190(1)(c) or to order further investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. (State of H.P. Vs Amar Singh) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 159 (H.P.)
Further investigation – Police submitting report – Court taking cognizance – It is open to police to conduct further investigation even if Court has taken cognizance of offence on the earlier report of police – Permission of Court is not required. (Zahira Habibulla H.Sheikh & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 195 (S.C.)
Investigation conducted in breach of mandatory provision – Court is competent to take cognizance – Cognizance taken by trial Court cannot be set aside by High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Union of India Vs Prakash P.Hinduja & Anr.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 205 (S.C.)
Investigation – Allegation that police had failed to investigate properly – Petitioner praying fresh investigation – Charge framed and case pending for trial – Police accepting shortcomings – In case of defective investigation police can conduct further investigation, even after the Court took cognizance of any offence on the strength of a police report earlier submitted – It would ordinarily be desirable that police should inform the Court and seek formal permission to make further investigation when fresh facts come to light instead of being silent over the matter. (Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 736 (S.C.)
Investigation – Manner and method of conducting investigation is left entirely to the officer in charge of the police station or a subordinate officer deputed by him – Magistrate has no power to interfere with the same. (Union of India Vs Prakash P.Hinduja & Anr.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 205 (S.C.)
Police report – Opinion expressed by police is not final – Court after application of mind may accept or reject the report submitted by the investigating agency. (Jagmail Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 119 (P&H)
Report that no case is made out – Magistrate has no power, expressly or impliedly to call upon the police to submit a chargesheet. (Dr.Kapil Garg Vs State) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 27 (Delhi)
Tape recorded conversation – Transcripts of tapes to be furnished to accused for the purpose of cross examination – Prosecution also directed to supply legible copies of documents to accused. (Abdul Latif Vs Central Bureau of Investigation) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 417 (P&H)
Further investigation – Report submitted u/s 173(2) – Investigating agency is not precluded from further investigation. (Kari Choudhary Vs Most.Sita Devi) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 565 (S.C.)
Further investigation after challan is put up – Permission of Court is required by Police where it seeks to further investigate the matter. (Vikas Gupta Vs State of Punjab) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 397 (P&H)
Further investigation – Court can direct further investigation to be conducted in respect of an offence even after taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of a report filed u/s 173(2) of the Code. (Joisy Vs Sub Inspector of Police) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 576 (Kerala)
Further investigation – Does not mean fresh investigation or reinvestigation – After further investigation police can file supplementary charge sheet and collection of fresh evidence is not essential – No bar of further investigation against additional accused – While framing charge in consequence of further investigation, trial Court cannot take note of statement of witness recorded in another trial – Held, order of framing charge on basis of supplementary statement recorded by police in further investigation is proper. (Mukesh Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 72 (Rajasthan)
Further investigation – Order of the Special Judge ordering further investigations and returning the challan set aside by the High Court on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction to make such directions – It does not create an embargo on the powers of the investigating agency to make further investigations and put supplementary charge sheet. (Ashok Kumar Koul Vs State of J&K & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 413 (J&K)
Murder – Police after investigation found some of accused innocent and submitted report u/s 173 keeping their names in column No.2 – Magistrate committing the case to Sessions Court – Sessions Court has no power under Cr.P.C. to direct the Magistrate to commit the case against accused who has been found innocent during investigation. (Shoqin Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 226 (P&H)
‘Punarvivechana’ means reinvestigation which is not contemplated under the provision – Returning of record to same or senior most police officer of same police station – Intention of Magistrate is to further investigation and not reinvestigation. (Faujdar Khan & Ors. Vs State of U.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 424 (Allahabad)
Reinvestigation – Court can direct reinvestigation but direction cannot be given to police to submit the challan after reinvestigation. (Jarmal Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 353 (P&H)
Report u/s 173 – There are three options to the Magistrate namely, (i) to accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process; or (ii) may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding; or (iii) may direct further investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. (Jarmal Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 353 (P&H)
Two different Investigating Agencies investigated the crime – One in favour and one against the accused – Prosecution decided to present challan – It is no ground to quash the proceedings or to entrust reinvestigation to a third agency – Opinion expressed by police is not final – Court after application of mind may accept or reject the report submitted by the investigating agency. (Jagmail Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 119 (P&H)
Report of police u/s 173 Cr.P.C. – Magistrate taking cognizance u/s 354 IPC – Successor Magistrate added a charge u/s 306 IPC on basis of record and fresh application of aggrieved party – No illegality – It does not amount to review of order. (S.P.S.Rathore Vs C.B.I. New Delhi) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 468 (P&H)
Offence under NDPS Act – Charge sheet filed without accompanying Chemical Analyser’s report – Charge sheet is incomplete – Such charge sheet is not charge sheet within the meaning of S.173(5) so as to enable the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence – Applicants in police custody for more than 90 days are entitled to be released on bail for non compliance of provisions of S.167(2) where said incomplete charge sheet had been filed. (Sunil Vasantrao Phulbande Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 477 (Bombay)
Further investigation – Can be conducted after taking cognizance of offence with permission of Court. (State of Kerala Vs Arumugan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 77 (Kerala)
Police report – If Magistrate is of the view that there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against some of the persons mentioned in FIR or decides to drop the proceedings, then Magistrate must give notice to informant and provide him opportunity of hearing – Position is different so far as an injured person or a relative of the deceased, who is not an informant, is concerned and they are not entitled to any notice – Right is conferred on the informant and none else. (Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 210 (S.C.)
Police report u/s 173(2) – Magistrate can take cognizance u/s 190(1)(b) even if police report is that no case is made out against accused. (Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 210 (S.C.)
Photographs and catalogues – Supply of copies to accused – Material being voluminous Court may instead of allowing copies allow inspection. (Vaman Narayan Ghiya Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 08 (Rajasthan)
Magistrate after taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of police report and after appearance of accused in pursuance of process issued, cannot order further investigation. (Natarajan Vs Sasidharan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 78 (Ker.)
Further investigation – After filing final report further investigation can be conducted by the same investigating agency with the permission of the Court. (Yeshodharan Vs State of Kerala) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 515 (Kerala)
Jurisdiction – It is the place where the offence was committed – In essence it is the cause of action for initiation of proceeding against the accused. (Y.Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vs Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 466 (S.C.)
“Ordinarily” – Use of word in the provision indicates that the provision is a general one and must be read subject to the special provisions contained in the Code. (Y.Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vs Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 466 (S.C.)
Dowry death – Territorial jurisdiction – Several persons involved in offence in such way that all may be tried together – Death at Jaipur – Court at Jaipur has territorial jurisdiction to try offence. (Jogendra Singh @ Jogendra Kumar Vs State & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 663 (Rajasthan)
Territorial jurisdiction – Magistrate after taking cognizance can decide the question of territorial jurisdiction – If the Magistrate finds that he has no territorial jurisdiction he can only return the complaint or the charge-sheet for presenting to a proper Court having territorial jurisdiction. (K.Ramakrishna Reddy Vs K.Padmavathi) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 38 (A.P.)
Dowry demand – Wife left the house and came to Chennai – No allegation about any demand of dowry or commission of any act constituting an offence at Chennai – Logic of continuance of offence cannot be applied. (Y.Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vs Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 466 (S.C.)
Demand of dowry – Jurisdiction – Marriage took place at Jaipur – Accused came to Mathura and demanded dowry – Court at Mathura has jurisdiction to try offence. (Smt.Indubala Vs State of U.P. & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 650 (Allahabad)
Territorial jurisdiction – On recoding of evidence if Court feels that cause of action does not fall within its jurisdiction then the appropriate order can be passed but the complaint cannot be thrown away on this count. (Punjab Tyre House & Ors. Vs State of Gujarat) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 18 (Gujarat)
Jurisdiction – Agreement to sell – Accused not full owner and had no authority from other owners to sell the same – Agreement entered into at place ‘A’ where he got some advance – Deal finalised at place ‘B’ – Court at place ‘A’ has jurisdiction because deceptions started from place ‘A’. (Mohan Das, R. Vs M.Jayarajan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 89 (Kerala)
Adulterated drug – Manufacturer can be prosecuted at the place of sale of adulterated drug irrespective of whether seller of drug has been made party or not. (Ashok Sureshchand Bal & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 209 (Bom.)
Acquittal on ground of benefit of doubt – Proceedings for filing false FIR – Cannot be initiated – Proceedings u/s 182 Cr.P.C. can only be initiated when allegations levelled are proved to be false. (Mehar Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 614 (P&H)
Jurisdiction clause in the agreement – The same applies to civil claims/actions – Jurisdiction of Criminal Court is not ousted by such agreement. (Jimmy R.Jagtiani Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 406 (P&H)
Bigamy – Jurisdiction – Complaint can be pursued in Court where wife has taken up permanent residence, at a place other than the place of cohabitation with the husband, irrespective of the fact whether that was only after the second marriage or even prior to second marriage. (Ganesh Harsingh Patil Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 345 (Bom.)
Bigamy – Jurisdiction – After amendment of S.182 Cr.P.C. in 1978, Court at the place where the wife has permanently taken up residence has jurisdiction. (Usha Gurubaxani Vs Lalit Gurubaxani) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 279 (M.P.)
Jurisdiction – No averment in complaint – Question of jurisdiction to be decided in favour of wife if there is sufficient material from which permanent residence of wife can be inferred irrespective of the fact that there is no such averment in the complaint. (Usha Gurubaxani Vs Lalit Gurubaxani) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 279 (M.P.)
Offence committed by Indian citizen outside the country – Sanction – Requirement of sanction is essential at the stage of trial and not a pre-condition for taking cognizance. (Om Hemarajani Vs State of U.P. & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 616 (Allahabad)
Offence committed by Indian citizen outside India – Court where complaint is filed and accused either appears voluntarily pursuant to issue of process or is brought before it in execution of warrants is the competent Court u/s 188 Cr.P.C. as that Court would find accused before him when he appears. (Om Hemrajani Vs State of U.P. & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 432 (S.C.)
Offence committed by Indian citizen outside the country – Place of offence or residence has no significance – Decisive factor for invoking jurisdiction of the Court would be the place where he is found – Accused shall be deemed to be found, wherever he is actually/physically present, whether or not he has been brought to that place against his sweet will. (Om Hemarajani Vs State of U.P. & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 616 (Allahabad)
Offence committed outside India – Sanction for trial and not for investigation is required. (Rajan Vs State of Kerala) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 439 (Kerala)
Complaint – Cognizance – Magistrate should consider the inherent improbabilities appearing on the face of a complaint – Magistrate has to exercise discretion in a judicial manner. (Shahid Akhtar Vs State of U.P. & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 764 (Allahabad)
Complaint – Lodging of FIR is not a sine qua non for accepting complaint petition – However this fact may be considered while adjudging the veracity or otherwise of the complaint petition. (Manmatha Kumar Jena Vs Smt.Sanjukta Jena) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 613 (Orissa)
“Taking cognizance” – Means judicial application of mind by Magistrate to the facts mentioned in the complaint with a view to taking further action. (Nitin Jairam Gadkari Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 76 (Bombay)
Three clauses of S.190(1) Cr.P.C. are not mutually exclusive and even after taking cognizance Magistrate is well within his jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence not included in charge-sheet by exercising power u/s 190(1)(c) Cr.P.C. (Sridhar Jena & Anr. Vs State of Orissa) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 549 (Orissa)
Criminal complaint – Magistrate has power to direct investigation by Police – This includes power to direct registration of FIR – Magistrate can also call for report from Police about progress of investigation if complaint is filed before Magistrate u/s 210 Cr.P.C. (Mithlesh Kumari Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 451 (P&H)
Report of police u/s 173 Cr.P.C. that no offence is made out against accused – Magistrate can ignore the conclusion of Investigating Officer and independently apply his mind to the facts gathered during the investigation of the case, including the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police. (S.P.S.Rathore Vs C.B.I. New Delhi) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 468 (P&H)
“May take cognizance” – Means exercise of judicial discretion – Magistrate has to take a judicial discretion when police report is received and to decide whether or not to take cognizance of the offence. (Gulam Hussain Vs Aamina Bano) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 654 (Rajasthan)
Police report that no case is made out – Even then Magistrate can take cognizance and in such event procedure u/ss 200, 2002 need not be followed. (Narayan Prasad & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 527 (Rajasthan)
Complaint u/s 406, 498A, 506, 34 IPC – Accused summoned – After recording pre-charge evidence accused charge sheeted – After framing of charge accused requested for recall of PWs for further cross examination – On failure of Complainant to produce PWs despite grant of opportunities, his evidence closed – Held, after framing of charge it is duty of Court to summon PWs and Court to adopt coercive method in case they fail to appear despite service. (Swaran Kaur Vs Gurdev Singh & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 437 (P&H)
Second complaint – Filed on the same day as first complaint dismissed for non prosecution – Very fact that second complaint was filed on the same day shows that Magistrate had dismissed the complaint without waiting for the complainant and his counsel – Second complaint is maintainable. (Thath Singh Vs Sube Singh) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 606 (P&H)
Criminal complaint – Proof beyond pleading – A fact cannot be proved in the absence of an averment in the complaint. (Deepak Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 67 (P&H)
Commission of offence – Report lodged with police – No action taken by police – Writ petition in such a case not to be entertained without availing remedy available under Cr.P.C. – Complainant has power u/s 190 r/w S.200 to lay complaint with Magistrate – Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint. (Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 210 (S.C.)
Sworn statement – Recorded in pre-set form with blanks filled up – It cannot be held that cognizance of offence complained of was taken by Magistrate mechanically without due application of mind, when there are detailed notings evidencing due application of mind. (Hanumanthi Vs PCH Marketing Services, Bangalore) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 378 (Kant.)
Scope – After committing case to Court of Sessions, Magistrate is not empowered to entertain complaint for taking cognizance against additional accused. (Gulam Hussain Vs Aamina Bano) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 654 (Rajasthan)
Police challan against five – Complaint against others – Magistrate taking cognizance against others after recording statement of witnesses – Provision of S.319 not attracted – No illegality in order of taking cognizance. (Banni & Ors Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 384 (Rajasthan)
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, Section 7 (1) (d) – Jurisdiction of Special Court – Power of special court to take direct cognizance of offence under 1989 Act – Court of sessions designated as special court – Special Judge has no power to take cognizance of complaint unless it is committed to by a competent Magistrate – Action of Special judge issuing process on the basis of complaint directly without commitment is without jurisdiction. (M.A.Kuttappan Vs. E.Krishnan Nayanar & Anr. ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 541 (S.C.)
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1)(iii), 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) – Jurisdiction of Special Court – Power of special court to take direct cognizance of offence under 1989 Act – Court of sessions designated as special court – Special court remains court of sessions – Special Judge has no power to take cognizance of complaint unless it is committed to it by a competent Magistrate. (Moly & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 514 (S.C.)
Forged rent note – Photocopy filed in civil suit – Bar of S.195 do not apply when only a photocopy is filed in a civil suit, to take cognizance of offence u/ss 467, 468 and 471 IPC on a private complaint or on police report. (Om Prakash Vs Mangilal & Ors.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 583 (Rajasthan)
Documents forged and produced in Court – Private complaint – Though Magistrate is barred from taking cognizance of such offence on private complaint, he is not barred from referring case to police for investigation without taking cognizance of case after examining complainant on oath – Police investigation ordered by Magistrate cannot be quashed. (Devaramane Sringeshwaraiah Vs M.R.Narasimha Pandith) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 572 (Karnataka)
Forging a false will – Probate proceedings pending – FIR u/s 420 IPC lodged – Quashing of FIR – FIR cannot be quashed as Court can file a complaint for the offence on the basis of the FIR (filed by the aggrieved private party) and the materials collected during investigation, provided it forms the requisite opinion and follows the procedure laid down in S.340 Cr.P.C. (Govind Prasad Vs State) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 580 (Raj.)
Document – Forgery committed before it was produced in Court – Court is competent to file complaint before Magistrate or direct investigation by Police – Court can order prosecution even in case de hors S.195 Cr.P.C. (Prakash Asnani Vs Prakash Asnani) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 321 (M.P.)
Document – Forgery committed before it was produced in Court – Held, bar contained in S.195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. is not applicable. (Prakash Asnani Vs Prakash Asnani) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 321 (M.P.)
Forged document produced in Court – Bar of S.195 Cr.P.C. is not applicable when forgery of document is committed prior to its production in Court. (Mahalingeshwara Bhat & Anr. Vs M.Ganapathy Bhat) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 620 (Kant.)
Forged document produced in Court – Private complaint under Ss.468, 471 IPC against accused is maintainable – No requirement that complaint be filed by Court concerned – Bar of S.195 not applicable in such case. (Bagh Singh Vs Iqbal Singh) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 666 (P&H)
Suit for declaration on basis of forged will filed – Copy of will produced alongwith plaint – Private complaint u/ss 467 & 471 IPC on a private complaint – Bar of S.195 Cr.P.C. does not apply as alleged forged Will had not been produced or put in evidence in Court & only its copy was filed – Complaint in writing by Court before whom copy of forged Will was filed was not required. (Radha & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 222 (Rajasthan)
Perjury – Charge framed in absence of written complaint from Court concerned is not sustainable. (Narasimhaiah Vs State by Inspector of Police) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 519 (Karnataka)
Bar contained in S.195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a Court. (Rakesh Goel Vs Maneesh Goel) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 186 (P&H)
Bar of S.195 – Does not apply where forgery is committed before the documents were filed in the Court. (Sada Singh Vs State of U.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 367 (All.)
Forged documents – Tendered in Court – No complaint made by Presiding Officer – Magistrate erred in considering complaint filed by individual and giving direction to police officer to make investigation – Cognizance cannot be taken in view of provisions of S.195(1)(a) and (b)(ii) – Proceedings and investigation quashed. (C.P.Kotwal Vs Ali Ashad & Ors.) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 66 (Bombay)
Quashing of FIR – offence committed in course of proceedings of a civil suit – Bar of S.195 – Comes at the stage of taking cognizance – Police is not precluded from investigating the allegations made and collecting evidence or material in support thereof. (Sham Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 513 (P&H)
Impersonation in Court – Decree for declaration to be owner in possession passed on that basis – FIR lodged by real owner – Sought to be quashed on the ground that complaint could be filed by the Court where the fraud was committed in view of bar of Ss.195, 340 Cr.P.C. – Held, accused has no right to seek quashing of FIR – It is for the Court, when challan is put up, to examine whether bar of S.195 Cr.P.C. applies or not. (Sham Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 513 (P&H)
Forged documents filed in Court – Bar of S.195 Cr.P.C. in lodging FIR and investigation by police – Ss.195 & 340 do not control or circumscribe power of police to investigate the offence – Embargo would come only at stage of taking cognizance – At the stage of investigation S.195 Cr.P.C. had no application – Court can then file a complaint on the basis of FIR and the material collected during investigation provided the procedure laid down in S.340 Cr.P.C. is followed. (M.Narayandas Vs State of Karnataka & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 631 (S.C.)
Forged will tendered in evidence – Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of offence referred in S.195(1)(b) – Where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of forged piece of evidence on board concept of administration of Justice may be minimal, Court may not lodge a complaint against guilty person. (Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. Vs Meenakshi Marwah & Anr.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 568 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 498 (S.C.)
Forged will tendered in evidence – Complaint by Court – Procedure – Court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding that enquiry should be made into offence. (Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. Vs Meenakshi Marwah & Anr.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 568 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 498 (S.C.)
Offences relating to documents given in evidence – Forged will tendered in evidence – Will forged firstly and thereafter produced in Court – Bar of S.195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. will apply when document was forged while same was in custody of Court – Will was forged before producing in Court – Bar of S.195(1)(b)(ii) will not apply – Aggrieved party can lodge a criminal complaint. (Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. Vs Meenakshi Marwah & Anr.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 568 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 498 (S.C.)
Corruption case – Final report submitted – Court directing prosecution to place matter for sanction before competent authority – Competent authority granting sanction without being influenced by observations of Court – Cognizance taken thereafter – No interference with order taking cognizance. (S.K.Bhargava Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 689 (Rajasthan)
Public servant – Offence committed u/ss 467, 468, 471 & 120-B – Sanction for prosecution is not required – It is no part of duty of a public servant while discharging his official duties to commit such offence. (State of H.P. Vs M.P.Gupta) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 575 (S.C.)
Sanction for prosecution is necessary when public servant cannot be removed from service except by or with the sanction of the Government – Accused, even if, public servants in terms of S.21 of IPC, but not holding such a post from where they could not be removed from service except by or with the sanction of the Government, then sanction for prosecution is not required. (M/s NALCO & Ors. Vs Registrar of Companies & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 31 (Orissa)
Misappropriation by police head constable incharge of malkhana – Sanction for prosecution is not required. (Vinayak Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 326 (Bom.)
Minister – Sanction for prosecution – Sanction for prosecution of a public servant, including a Minister, is the executive function of the State Government – Governor has no discretion in the matter – Governor acts on the advice of Council of Ministers and not contrary to it. (Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Vs State & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 598 (M.P.)
Sanction for prosecution – Offence u/s 409 IPC and u/s 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act by Public Servant – Authority refused to grant sanction for prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act – Charge sheet can be presented under S.409 IPC for which no sanction is required – Offence u/s 409 IPC is graver than offence u/s 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act. (Satish Chandra Mathur & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 474 (Rajasthan)
Minister – Sanction for prosecution – Council of Minister refusing to grant sanction for prosecution – Governor has no discretion to grant sanction – Case of Chief Minister stands on a different footing – If there are grave and serious charges against Chief Minister and sufficient evidence is available then Governor would have to decide the question of sanction of his prosecution. (Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Vs State & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 598 (M.P.)
Violation of Water Act by Municipal Committee – Prosecution of President, Vice-President and Secretary – Said officers ceased to hold office – Sanction for prosecution not obtained – Prosecution quashed. (Ram Avtar Sharma Vs Haryana State Board) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 448 (P&H)
Public servant – Sanction to prosecute – Incharge of Malkhana misappropriated amount and made false entries – Sanction to prosecute u/s 197 is not required. (State of Maharashtra Vs Shankar Narayan Wagh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 7 (Bom.)
Appellant alongwith some other BSF personnel alleged to have come to respondent’s shop and demanded Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification and on refusal to pay, they entered into the shop, ransacked the shop and illegally took away some commodities – Appellant’s case that on basis of a notification they were authorized to function u/ss 100-104, 106, 107, 109 and 110 of Customs Act and as they suspected that complainant had stored articles in his shop for purpose of smuggling, seizure was made – Held, appellants are not entitled to get protection u/s 197 Cr.P.C. (S.K.Zutshi & Anr. Vs Bimal Debnath & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 609 (S.C.)
Detaining a person in Police Station without registration of a case – Prosecution of Police Officer – Sanction for prosecution is not required as it cannot be said that Police Officer was acting in discharge of official duty. (Sant Kumar, SHO Vs The State of Punjab & Anr.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 197 (P&H)
For invoking protection of the provision the acts of the accused complained of must be such that the same cannot be separated from the discharge of official duty – If there was no reasonable connection between them and the performance of those duties, the official status furnishes only the occasion or opportunity of the acts, then no sanction is required. (Tapan Kumar Bhattacharjee Vs Bijan Kumar Bose & Anr.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 558 (Calcutta)
If act or omission for which accused is charged has reasonable connection with discharge of his duty then it must be held to be official to which applicability of S.197 Cr.P.C. cannot be disputed. (S.K.Zutshi & Anr. Vs Bimal Debnath & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 609 (S.C.)
Misappropriation of money by encashing National Saving Certificates – Offence committed by accused is not done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty – Commission of offence having no direct connection or inseparable link with duty as public servant – Previous sanction for prosecution is not required. (Dipak Ghosh Dastidar Vs Sanat Kumar Mukherjee & State) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 604 (Calcutta)
Official duty – Meaning – There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duty – That act must bear such relation to the duty that the accused could lay a reasonable claim but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the course of the performance of his duty. (State of H.P. Vs M.P.Gupta) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 575 (S.C.)
Police Officer – Prosecution – Sanction – Complaint against Police Officer that he harassed, levelled false charges and involved the complainant and his brother in a false case – Held, the question whether the acts alleged were committed and or whether the police official acted in discharge of his duties can only be examined during the course of trial – Question of sanction left open to be decided in the main judgment. (Raj Kishor Roy Vs Kamleshwar Pandey) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 224 (S.C.)
Police officials – Entering the house of the complainant with intent to cause injuries and thereafter causing simple and grievous injuries does not come in discharge of official duties – Previous sanction for taking cognizance of the offence is not required. (Tej Singh & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 606 (Rajasthan)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – Section 5 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 19 – Sanction – Retirement – Under 1947 and 1998 Acts accused cannot claim immunity on the ground of want of sanction if he has ceased to be a public servant on the date when court took cognizance – However under section 197 Cr.P.C protection is available for pre and post retirement period. (N.Bhargavan Pillai (dead) by Lrs. & Anr. Vs State of Kerala ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 575 (S.C.)
Public servant – Discharge sought on ground that permission to prosecute not obtained – Dismissal of application – Held, revision against such an order is maintainable – It is not interlocutory order – If objections raised by accused were upheld, the entire prosecution proceedings would terminate. (State Rep. by Inspector of Police & Ors. Vs N.M.T.Joy Immaculate) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 669 (S.C.)
Public servant – Previous sanction – Immunity from prosecution without sanction extends only to acts which can be shown to be done in discharge of official duty or purported to be done in such discharge, but an offence arising out of abuse of official position by an act not purporting to official does not require sanction. (Manoharan Vs Director General of Police) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 479 (Kerala)
Public servant – Previous sanction – Want of sanction – Question need not always be decided as preliminary issue – Question can be examined during the course of trial by giving opportunity to the defence to establish it – In such an eventuality, the question of sanction should be left open to be decided in the main judgment which may be delivered upon conclusion of the trial. (Manoharan Vs Director General of Police) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 479 (Kerala)
Public servant – Retirement on date of taking cognizance – Sanction for prosecution is required even after retirement. (Bram Dev Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 09 (P&H)
Public servant – Sanction for prosecution – Act committed by a public servant not in the discharge of his duty then bar u/s 197 Cr.P.C.is not attracted. (State of H.P. Vs M.P.Gupta) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 575 (S.C.)
Public servant – Sanction for prosecution – By Home Department – Public servant coming under Finance Department – Where power to accord such sanction has not been allocated to any particular department under Rules of Business, Home Department alone is competent to issue sanction – Sanction given by Home Department is valid. (M.P.Muniratnappa Vs State of Karnataka) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 317 (Karnataka)
Public servant – Sanction for prosecution – Court is precluded from entertaining a complaint or taking notice of it or exercising jurisdiction if it is in respect of a public servant who is accused of an offence alleged to have committed during discharge of his official duty, except with previous sanction. (S.K.Zutshi & Anr. Vs Bimal Debnath & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 609 (S.C.)
Public servant – Sanction for prosecution – Protection given is to protect responsible public servants against institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants – Protection is available only when public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty – If public servant in doing his official duty acts in excess of his duty but there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of his official duty, excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant from the protection. (State of Orissa Through Kumar Raghvendra Singh & Ors. Vs Ganesh Chandra Jew) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 650 (S.C.)
Public servant – Sanction for prosecution – Refused – Order cannot be reviewed on same material – Power to review is not an inherent power – It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implications. (Omkar Sharma & etc. Vs State of H.P.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 466 (H.P.)
Sanction for prosecution – Criminal offence by senior officer – At his instance his subordinate also joined – Officer not liable to prosecution for want of sanction – Cognizance of offence can also not be taken against subordinate. (Nanu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 807 (Rajasthan)
Sanction for prosecution – It must be proved that sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence charged – It is desirable that facts should be referred to on the face of the sanction and if not so then prosecution must in the course of trial prove by extraneous evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority after applying his mind to the relevant facts had accorded the sanction – Authority given sanction should prima facie consider the evidence and all other attending circumstances before he comes to a conclusion that the prosecution in the circumstances be sanctioned or forbidden. (The Assistant Commissioner, Assessment-II, Bangalore & Ors. Vs M/s Velliappa Textiles Ltd.) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 692 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 567 (S.C.)
Sanction for prosecution – Order of sanction or refusal – Only an administrative act – Order need not contain detailed reasons in support thereof. (Sringeri Prithviraj (Dead) By L.Rs Vs State of Karnataka & Anr.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 489 (Karnataka)
Sanction – Lack of sanction or not proper sanction – Question can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. (Mahendra Kumar Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 500 (Rajasthan)
Sanction – Police officials – Sanction given by SP – No sanction in the eye of law. (Mahendra Kumar Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 500 (Rajasthan)
Slapping of senior – No prior sanction for prosecution is required. (Mohan Parkash Dubey Vs State) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 220 (Delhi)
Want of valid sanction – Proceedings dropped and accused acquitted – Fresh prosecution can be launched after valid sanction. (Satish Chandra Mathur & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 474 (Rajasthan)
Want of valid sanction – Trial is null and void – Court cannot consider prosecution case on merits – Finding on merits of the case will stand expunged and will not be taken into consideration in future. (Satish Chandra Mathur & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 474 (Rajasthan)
Sanction for prosecution – There should be nexus between the acts alleged and the discharge of official duties for requirement of sanction. (Vijayan Vs Sanalkumar) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 478 (Kerala)
Complaint – Public servant – Sanction for prosecution – Raising of plea by accused at enquiry stage – Held, accused in the course of enquiry into a complaint u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and before order has been passed about issuance of process can raise plea under Section 197 Cr.P.C. before the Court by filing such documents which can be looked into as evidence without their formal proof. (Mohinder Lal & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 160 (Patna)
FIR lodged as electricity meter found to be tampered with – Accused filed complaint against Electricity Officers without disclosing that complaint is against Electricity Officers and that FIR is already lodged against him – Order taking cognizance on private complaint set aside as petitioners were acting in discharge of their official duty. (Dashrath Singh & Ors. Vs State & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 114 (Rajasthan)
Offence u/s 494 IPC – Magistrate can take cognizance only when aggrieved person files a complaint – Magistrate cannot take cognizance of offence on a police report. (Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 273 (P&H)
Provision of S.198 is mandatory. (Simachal Mishra Vs State of Orissa) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 78 (Orissa)
Demand of dowry and harassment of wife – Father of the aggrieved woman filed the complaint – Father is empowered to institute complaint – No illegality in proceedings. (Smt.Indubala Vs State of U.P. & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 650 (Allahabad)
Offence u/s 494 IPC – A complaint has to be filed – The provision of S.198 Cr.P.C. do not authorise the conviction of an offence when no complaint has been made. (Simachal Mishra Vs State of Orissa) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 78 (Orissa)
Complaint – Does not include a police report. (Simachal Mishra Vs State of Orissa) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 78 (Orissa)
Defamation – Complaint through power of attorney holder – Leave of Court – If complaint is instituted through power of attorney holder then leave of Court is required – Even in the absence of a separate petition and specific orders, grant of such leave can be assumed – In the instant case complaint presented by power of attorney holder on behalf of the complainant was entertained, cognizance taken and summons issued – Held, there is assumed leave of Court. (Fr.Thomas Vs Thomas J.Padiyath) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 211 (Kerala)
Defamation – Personal appearance of complainant is not required for the filing of complaint – Complaint can be instituted in the name of person aggrieved through some other person with leave of Court. (Fr.Thomas Vs Thomas J.Padiyath) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 211 (Kerala)
Complaint by “some person aggrieved by the offence” cannot be given a restricted meaning, so as to mean that the complaint has to be made by the person who has been defamed “alone”. (R.Rajagopal @ R.R.Gopal & Anr. Vs V.Sathya Moorthy) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 39 (Madras)
‘Infirmity’ – Meaning – Means any deficiency, debility, disability, impossibility, difficulty or inadequacy which the Court finds to be reasonable and sufficient to dispense with the personal appearance of the complainant to present the complaint – Complainant in foreign country – Comes within the purview of ‘Infirmity’. (Fr.Thomas Vs Thomas J.Padiyath) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 211 (Kerala)
Second complaint on same allegations – Not maintainable when earlier complaint is dismissed due to non appearance and/or non prosecution. (Smt.Pinki Dhawan Vs Satish Sharma) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 53 (P&H)
Police case and complaint – Both posted on same day – Cognizance taking Magistrate cannot ignore the evidence received in course of the enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. on the ground of contradictory or inconsistent materials available in the case diary. (Santosh Kumar Biswal & Anr. Vs Sahadev Mallick) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 26 (Orissa)
Police case and complaint – Both posted on same day – There is no hard and fast rule provided or prohibiting a cognizance taking Magistrate to peruse the case diary. (Santosh Kumar Biswal & Anr. Vs Sahadev Mallick) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 26 (Orissa)
Proceedings before Magistrate u/s 200 Cr.P.C. – It is an inquiry u/s 2(g) of the Code. (Vasudevan Vs State of Kerala) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 895 (Kerala)
Non examination of complaint before issue of process – Not an illegality – It is a mere irregularity which is curable u/s 465 Cr.P.C. (Dipak Ghosh Dastidar Vs Sanat Kumar Mukherjee & State) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 604 (Calcutta)
Statement of a complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. is evidence – Any statement which Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, whether such statement be tested by a cross examination or not, will certainly be evidence for the purpose of S.3 of Evidence Act. (Vasudevan Vs State of Kerala) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 895 (Kerala)
Complaint against public servant – Directions for investigation by Lokayukt – Held, Magistrate cannot direct investigation by the authority, other than mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Prabhanshu Kamal Vs Awadhesh Singh Bhandoriya) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 10 (M.P.)
Complaint – A product of fraud and a total abuse of the process of Court – Serious doubt as to whether procedure required under Cr.P.C. was really followed by magistrate at all while taking cognizance of the offence – Held, a fraudulent act even in judicial proceedings cannot be allowed to stand – All actions taken in complaint including issuance of bailable warrants declared void ab initio, hence set aside. (Vijay Shekhar & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 782 (S.C.)
Market fee – Evasion – Complaint by Secretary – When Market Committee by resolution duly passed, has authorised Secretary to lodge complaint on behalf of Market Committee then complaint lodged by Secretary pursuant to such resolution is competent. (Mysore Fruit Products Limited, Bangalore & Ors. Vs Fruits and Vegetables (SPL.) Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Bangalore) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 191 (Karnataka)
Police case and complaint – Law does not prohibit or prevent an informant in a police case to lodge a complaint. (Santosh Kumar Biswal & Anr. Vs Sahadev Mallick) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 26 (Orissa)
Pre-charge statement – Cannot be taken into account if witness is not examined after framing of the charge. (State of Haryana Vs Ramesh Kumar) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 13 (P&H)
Second complaint on same facts – Can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances, namely, where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on record in the previous proceedings, have been adduced. (Mahesh Chand Vs B.Janardhan Reddy & Anr.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 83 (S.C.) : 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 250 (S.C.)
Second complaint – No statutory bar in filing second complaint on same facts – However, second complaint can be entertained in exceptional circumstances, namely, where previous order was passed on an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on record in the previous proceeding have been adduced. (Poonam Chand Jain & Anr. Vs Fazru) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 351 (S.C.) : 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 801 (S.C.)
Second complaint – There is no statutory bar in filing a second complaint on the same facts. (Mahesh Chand Vs B.Janardhan Reddy & Anr.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 83 (S.C.) : 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 250 (S.C.)
Private complaint – Case closed on acceptance of ‘B’ report submitted by Police – Held, such order is not final order or judgment of acquittal of accused – It is open to Magistrate to recall such order suo motu or at instance of complainant and recall of such order does not amount to altering or reviewing judgment or final order. (H.R.Shetty Vs Titas Fernandes) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 710 (Karnataka)
Custodial death – Complaint against police – Magistrate directing Corps of Detectives to investigate – Though Magistrate has no power to direct COD to investigate however investigation made by COD in case of custodial death is as per standing order of Government – Cognizance taken on report filed by COD is lawful. (Narasimhaiah Vs State by Inspector of Police) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 519 (Kant.)
Investigation by police – Order by Magistrate – Section 156(3) of the Code empowers a Magistrate to direct such officer in charge of the police station to investigate any cognizable case over which such Magistrate has jurisdiction and not a superior police officer. (N.Rajachar & Ors. Vs Kodandarama) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 79 (Karnataka)
Magistrate has no power to direct the police to stop investigation or to conduct a parallel enquiry u/s 200 after forwarding the complaint u/s 156(3), when police officer takes a decision to close the investigation, he can take cognizance and proceed to conduct the enquiry u/s 200 Cr.P.C. (Krishnan Vs State of Kerala) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 716 (Kerala)
“Supplementary complaint” to implead new persons – Legally impressible – If, in course of trial, it appears to Court that some persons other than those already named as accused are also involved in incident, it is open to Court to implead them as co-accused. (Ajit Narain Haksar Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 139 (Karnataka)
Complaint – Reference to police for investigation – When allegations in complaint do not disclose any offence, complaint has to be thrown out and entertaining of such complaint also does not arise. (P.R.Venugopal Vs S.M.Krishna) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 634 (Karnataka)
Complaint – Magistrate can dismiss complaint without recording statement of complainant and his witnesses if on facts disclosed in the complaint comes to the conclusion that it is a not a fit case to proceed further. (Gulam Hussain Vs Aamina Bano) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 654 (Rajasthan)
Complaint – Summoning order – Revision u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – Accused after putting in appearance may move an application for dropping the proceedings or can argue the case for discharge at the time of framing of charge. (Sibu Vs Mohinder Singh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 264 (P&H)
Complaint – Offence of robbery – Requires investigation by police – In absence of evidence of recovery it would be difficult to establish the charge u/s 504 IPC – Magistrate instead of taking cognizance himself should have sent the complaint for investigation by police u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Order of Magistrate taking cognizance quashed and set aside. (Sohanlal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 702 (Rajasthan)
Complaint – Magistrate by recording preliminary evidence cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence. (Sukhwinder Kaur Vs Kulwinder Singh & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 400 (P&H)
Complaint – Exclusively triable by Court of Sessions – At the stage of Ss.203, 204 Magistrate is not to weigh the evidence meticulously as if he were the trial Court – If there is prima facie evidence in support of the allegations in the complaint that will be sufficient ground for issuing process to the accused and committing them for trial to the Court of Sessions. (AIR 1980 S.C. 1780 followed). (Madan Lal Vs Rang Lal) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 352 (P&H)
Cognizance of offence – Duty of Court – Court should consider the provision of law in context with the allegations made in the complaint and not to burden the accused with unnecessary offences which complaint does not decipher keeping in view the provisions of law prevalent, as it causes the agony, expenditure to such person/persons. (Shridhar Vinayak Modgi Vs Ravindra Khanderao Hajare & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 403 (Bombay)
Issuing process – Prima facie case is to be seen – It is not be seen whether the accused is to be convicted or to be acquitted. (Sibu Vs Mohinder Singh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 264 (P&H)
Retail sale price – Tampering of – Complaint must be by Director or any authorised officer, any person aggrieved or a recognised consumer association – Complaint by Inspector who was not duly authorised to make complaint – Process issued on complaint made by unauthorised person quashed. (The Manager, Asian Paints (India) Limited, Bangalore Vs The Inspector of Legal Metrology) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 611 (Karnataka)
Second complaint – Can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances and if a special case is made out and where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record or where the facts could not be brought on record in spite of due diligence – It is for the complainant to satisfy the Court by establishing a special case in order to maintain the second complaint. (Dr.Jayaramakrishnan Vs Mookan Pattam Kettiyar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 172 (Madras)
Summons – Omission to specify offence and relevant provision of statute in summons – Does not render proceedings void, when those particulars are mentioned in complaint. (Mysore Fruit Products Limited, Bangalore & Ors. Vs Fruits and Vegetables (SPL.) Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Bangalore) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 191 (Karnataka)
Second complaint on same facts – First complaint dismissed for non prosecution – Application to recall order also dismissed – Second complaint on same facts filed – Dismissal of earlier complaint does not bar fresh complaint on same facts. (Tulsamma Vs Jagannath & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 547 (Karnataka)
Complaint – Summoning order – Recall – After issuance of summons, an application by an accused u/s 203 Cr.P.C. for recall of summoning order is impermissible because by then S.203 is already over and Magistrate has proceeded further to Section 204 stage. (Adalat Prasad Vs Rooplal Jindal) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 570 (S.C.)
Statement recorded during inquiry – Not admissible in evidence and the same cannot form the basis of conviction of an accused. (Sashi Jena & Ors. Vs Khadal Swain & Anr.) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 528 (S.C.)
Credit card – Failure to pay dues payable for use of credit card – It is only a civil liability – Intention of cheating is not there. (Milind P.Pandit Vs Bank of Baroda, Pune & Anr.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 119 (Bom.)
Accused can neither be heard nor documents produced by him can be considered at the stage of proceedings u/s 202 Cr.P.C. (Securities & Exchange Board Vs Hindustan Lever Ltd.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 547 (Bombay)
Complaint – After recording statement of complainant order passed directing police to make further enquiry and submit report – Prior to receipt of report from the police, order passed issuing process – Order passed issuing process in absence of police report is not legal and proper. (Banwarilal Purohit & Anr. Vs Ramdeo Baba Sahkari Griha Nirman Samiti Limited, Nagpur & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 482 (Bombay)
Complaint – At the stage of inquiry accused has no right to participate and has no right to cross examine any witness examined by prosecution – Accused can remain present only with a view to be informed of what is going on. (Sashi Jena & Ors. Vs Khadal Swain & Anr.) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 528 (S.C.)
Complaint – Enquiry – Documentary evidence – Photostat copy of sale deed – Writing and signatures of sale deed is required to be proved to be the writing and signature of such person who is purported to has written, or signed upon the document – Photostat copy of a certified copy is not admissible in evidence. (Mohinder Lal & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 160 (Patna)
Complaint – Every allegation in the complaint has to be considered prima facie so as to take cognizance – Taking cognizance of a criminal complaint is a serious matter and it has to be done with due application of judicial mind – Any mistake is likely to cause irreparable damage to reputation, status and well being, comfort and money of person concerned. (Michael Jackson, USA Vs Michael Jackson Fashion (India) Ltd., Mumbai & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 513 (Bombay)
Sufficient grounds – Means that a prima facie case is made out against the accused and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction. (S.W.Palanitkar Vs State of Bihar) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 360 (S.C.)
“All his witnesses” – Does not mean all witnesses named in the complaint – Complainant is required to produce all the witnesses and to examine them on whom he claims that the case depends. (Murali Mohakur @ Mendidhar Vs State of Orissa) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 248 (Ori.)
Complaint – Preliminary evidence recorded – Thereafter report of SHO called – Held, by recording preliminary evidence Magistrate cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence – Before issuance of process by Magistrate it cannot be concluded that cognizance has been taken by him because he has yet to make up his mind whether on the basis of the available evidence a prima facie case is made out to issue process or take any other recourse – Order upheld. (Sukhwinder Kaur Vs Kulwinder Singh & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 400 (P&H)
Criminal complaint – Report from police – Mere asking for a report from police does not debar Magistrate from taking cognizance on the basis of complaint. (Mithlesh Kumari Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 451 (P&H)
Complaint – Courses open to Magistrate who receives police report u/s 173(1) on an order of investigation u/s 156(3) are: (1) May decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop the case; (2) May take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process – This may be done without being bound in any manner by the conclusion arrived at by the police in their report; or (3) May take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 – On adopting the third alternative, Magistrate may hold or direct an inquiry under Section 202, if he thinks fit and thereafter may dismiss the complaint or issue process, as the case may be. (Jogendranath Gharei & Ors. Vs State of Orissa & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 570 (Orissa)
Complaint – Courses available to Magistrate – Analysed. (Jogendranath Gharei & Ors. Vs State of Orissa & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 570 (Orissa)
Complaint – Summoning order – Recall of summoning order – Person summoned can request for recall of summoning order and his petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that reconsideration of summoning order would amount to review of summoning order. (Group Capt.Mohinder Singh Sihota Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 292 (P&H)
Murder – Complaint case – List of 42 witnesses – Only 12 witnesses examined – Other witnesses given up at the stage of committing – Committing Magistrate can commit the case to Sessions Judge if prima facie charge is made out without examining other witnesses. (Hardev Singh Vs Alla Singh) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 180 (P&H)
Complaint – Cognizance – Person against whom cognizance is taken has a right to approach High Court to challenge order of issuing process against him. (Michael Jackson, USA Vs Michael Jackson Fashion (India) Ltd., Mumbai & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 513 (Bombay)
All witnesses named in complaint not examined – Order of cognizance cannot be rejected on that ground. (Murali Mohakur @ Mendidhar Vs State of Orissa) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 248 (Orissa)
At the stage of summoning, the court is only required to see whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed with the complaint and not whether the allegations in the complaint can lead to conviction – The defence raised by the petitioners cannot be considered at this stage. (Rear Admiral (Retd.) Balakrishnan Ravi Menon Vs Vandana Jhingan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 671 (Delhi)
Complaint – At the stage of process, the Magistrate is obliged to look into the material to find out prima facie whether reasonable grounds are made out to proceed further in the matter – The reasonable test to be applied by the Magistrate is to see whether on the basis of materials so produced, if unrebutted, would it result in conviction. (Pushparaj Vs Subbanna & Ors.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 475 (Kant.)
Complaint – Dismissal of complaint on the ground that none of the ingredients of the offence alleged in the complaint is attracted – However, it was no where mentioned as to how and in what manner the ingredients were not attracted – Magistrate did not refer to evidence also – Held, order passed by Magistrate does not show any application of mind and otherwise also it is a non speaking order. (Kuldip Chand Bhalla Vs Kamaljit Singh) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 325 (P&H)
Complaint – Dismissal of complaint after consideration of preliminary evidence – Order is not an interlocutory order – Revision against – Maintainable. (Kuldip Chand Bhalla Vs Kamaljit Singh) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 325 (P&H)
Complaint – None appearance of complainant – Dismissal in default at early hours – Court cannot be oblivious of the fact of chaotic traffic and nightmarish jams and snarling movement of vehicles as one is not sure when he will reach his destination and when will he be caught by surprise on his way to have long and winding diversions – Court is expected to wait till late hours – Complaint restored. (M/s Continental Papers Ltd. Vs M/s Darshan Print Pack (P) Ltd.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 615 (Delhi)
Second complaint – First complaint withdrawn on some technical grounds with permission to file fresh one – Second complaint on the same facts is maintainable. (Rear Admiral (Retd.) Balakrishnan Ravi Menon Vs Vandana Jhingan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 671 (Delhi)
Summoning of accused – Detailed order is not required – However reasons are to be recorded while not summoning the accused and dismissing complaint u/s 203 Cr.P.C. – Magistrate is not required to mention the documents which he considered for satisfying himself to take cognizance – Documentary evidence of defence is not required to be considered at the stage of summoning. (Rakesh Devi Vs State of U.P. & Anr.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 471 (All.)
Complaint – Dismissal u/s 203 Cr.P.C. – Revision against – Sessions Court directed Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and to proceed with the case – Direction of the Sessions Court leaves no discretion to the Magistrate to satisfy himself about the truth or otherwise of the allegations – Discretion should have been left to the Magistrate – Said direction set aside – Order of Sessions Court modified accordingly. (Mikkilineni Venkateshwari Vs Tummula Nirmala ) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 714 (A.P.)
Second complaint – On same facts – No absolute bar – However, it can be entertained in exceptional circumstances when the previous order was passed in an incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint or it was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or new facts which could not with reasonable diligence have been brought on record in the previous proceeding, have been brought on record. (Kunti Devi & Ors. Vs Urmila Chauhan @ Sudha) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 240 (Orissa)
Complaint of offence – Offence triable by Court of Session – Magistrate taking cognizance of offence inspite of report of police who were earlier directed to investigate into complaint – Where allegations made in complaint and evidence, both oral and documentary, make out prima facie case, Magistrate, held, was right in deciding to issue process notwithstanding medical opinion which was contrary to case made out – Value of medical opinion in light of rest of evidence is to be decided at trial and not at stage of issuance of process to accused. (Dr.A.Ebenezer Vs Smt.M.Mary) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 468 (Karnataka)
Complaint – Summoning order – Before issuing summoning order in a private complaint, Court is required to apply its mind and then on the basis of the preliminary evidence and the documents on the record, it has to form an opinion that prima facie the person summoned has committed a cognizable offence. (Rajinder Mohan Kashyap Vs Om Parkash Sharma) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 285 (P&H)
Summoning order – Is an interim order – Order issuing process can be varied and recalled and the fact that process has already been issued is no bar to drop the proceedings if the complaint on the very face of it does not disclose any offence against the accused. (M/s.Prakash Industries Ltd. Vs State & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 367 (Delhi)
Summoning order – Magistrate has jurisdiction to entertain an objection against the summoning order and has power to recall the summoning order and discharge the accused. (M/s.Krishna Kumar Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 545 (Allahabad)
Dishonour of cheque – Complaint – List of witnesses – In absence of list of witnesses summons against accused will not be issued – Provision of S.204(2) is mandatory in nature commanding absolute compliance. (Fakirappa Vs Shiddalingappa & Anr.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 689 (Kant.)
Non compliance of the provision – Does not affect the jurisdiction of the Magistrate either to issue process or to try the case – Where the matter is at the initial stage directions can be given to furnish a copy of list of witnesses, if any, before the proceedings actually start – Stage of the proceedings is relevant to determine the prejudice, if any, caused to the accused. (Pramila Mahesh Shah Vs Employees’ State Insurance Corp.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 440 (Bombay)
Summons – Issued without list of witnesses – Complainant to file list of witnesses – Complainant if he is the sole witness then he is to file a memo to that effect – Summons be issued afresh after due compliance of the provisions of law. (Shivaraj Vs Gurudeva) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 714 (Karnataka) : 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 520 (Karnataka)
Provision is directory in nature – Provision though is directory but Magistrate should ensure that a copy of the complaint accompanies the summons or warrant – Non compliance of the provision does not vitiate the issue of process and a copy of the complaint can be furnished to the accused before the proceedings actually start. (Pramila Mahesh Shah Vs Employees’ State Insurance Corp.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 440 (Bombay)
Warrant issued u/s 204 – Magistrate has power to remand an accused brought before him under arrest on executing a warrant issued u/s 204 Cr.P.C. (Vinodan Vs S.I. of Police) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 230 (Kerala)
Complaint – At the stage of issuing process accused has no right to be heard on the question whether process should be issued against him or not. (Varinder Choudhary Vs P.Kumar & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 108 (P&H)
Complaint – Summoning order – Recall – Magistrate has no power to review and recall summoning order – Remedy lies u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Adalat Prasad Vs Rooplal Jindal) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 570 (S.C.)
Summoning order – Revision against – Revisional Court cannot go into merits of the case – It is not permissible under law for Revisional Court to go into merits of the case and decide the same as if it is deciding a case on merits. (Varinder Choudhary Vs P.Kumar & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 108 (P&H)
Complaint – Order of issuing process – Cannot be reviewed or reconsidered by Magistrate – In a given case S.482 can be pressed into service. (Poonam Chand Jain & Anr. Vs Fazru) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 801 (S.C.)
Complaint not disclosing any criminal offence – Order of issuing process as well as entire prosecution of petitioners quashed. (Pyarelal Ramkishore Prajapati Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 165 (Bombay)
Complaint – Cognizance taken – Same cannot be faulted on the ground that Magistrate had not referred the matter to police for investigation under S.156(3) of Cr.P.C. (Ram Swarup Vs Mohd.Javed Razack & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 141 (S.C.)
Complaint – Summoning order – Issuance of process u/s 204 Cr.P.C., is a preliminary step in the stage of trial – It is an interlocutory order and the same cannot be reviewed or reconsidered by the Magistrate, there being no provision under the Code for review of an order by the same Court – It is impermissible for the Magistrate to reconsider his decision to issue process in the absence of any specific provision to recall such order – Only remedy available to an accused is under S.482 of the Code and not by way of an application to recall the summons or to seek discharge which is not contemplated in the trial of a summons case. (Subramanium Sethuraman Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 307 (S.C.)
Personal appearance – Exemption – Accused living at Delhi and facing trial at Faridabad u/s 498-A IPC – Personal appearance of accused exempted unless it is specifically required at a particular stage. (Shailesh Kumar Verma Vs State of Haryana) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 499 (P&H)
Personal appearance – Exemption – Accused summoned u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act – Exemption from personal appearance can be allowed at the stage of examination u/s 251 Cr.P.C. (Mohd. Sajid Qureshi & Ors. Vs R.Prathap & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 234 (A.P.)
Dispensing with personal appearance – It is discretion of Magistrate – Discretion should be exercised where an accused due to his physical disability and or because of distance at which he ordinarily resides or carrying on business and his appearance on each date would cause great hardship or for any other good and cogent reasons – However, precautions should be taken by obtaining an undertaking that counsel on his behalf would be present in the Court throughout the proceedings and that the accused has no objection in taking evidence in his absence. (Durowelds Private Limited Vs The Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 106 (Orissa)
Exemption from personal appearance – Accused 76 years of age – Had been attending Court proceedings regularly – Further personal appearance exempted. (Chandi Parshad Vs The State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 267 (P&H)
Personal appearance – Exemption – Magistrate can allow exemption from personal appearance of accused from first appearance – However, this cannot be taken to mean that accused has indefeasible right. (Mohd. Sajid Qureshi & Ors. Vs R.Prathap & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 234 (A.P.)
Personal attendance of accused – Exemption – There is no legal right vested in accused to seek exemption from personal appearance – Discretion to dispense with personal attendance should be used in rare cases on account of distance, physical disability or other good reasons sub servient to the interest of justice. (Rajan Kohli & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 145 (P&H)
Death of complainant – It is heirs who can apply to continue the prosecution themselves or to grant permission to them to authorise the Power of Attorney holders to continue the prosecution on their behalf – Power of attorney holder of heirs cannot seek permission to continue the prosecution. (Jimmy Jahangir Madan Vs Bolly Cariyappa Hindley) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 753 (S.C.)
Supply of documents to accused – Object of – The documents in terms of Sections 207 and 208 are supplied to make the accused aware of the materials which are sought to be utilized against him – The object is to enable the accused to defend himself properly – The idea behind the supply of copies is to put him on notice of what he has meet at the trial. (Sunita Devi Vs State of Bihar & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 415 (S.C.)
Absence of accused at the time of passing Commitment order – Mere absence of accused at the time of commitment of the case to Court of Sessions does not ipso facto cause any prejudice unless the accused specifically establishes as to how and in what manner prejudice has been caused to him. (Vaman Narayan Ghiya Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 08 (Rajasthan)
Charge u/s 307 IPC – Death of victim after a month – Framing of charge u/s 302 IPC – Contention that death could not be said as a consequence of injuries caused – Held, cause of death can be determined on broad probabilities – Time gap between date of injuries and date of death is not material and what is material is the cause of death – Post-mortem report shows that seat of ante mortem injuries was the same as mentioned in injury report – No interference is called for. (Satish Rai & Anr. Vs State of U.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 432 (Allahabad)
Charge u/s 307 IPC – Death of victim after a month – Supplementary charge-sheet u/s 302 IPC filed and cognizance of offence taken – Held, cognizance is not taken on a particular section of offence or a particular accused – Any subsequent addition or deletion in section and of accused can be made subsequent to taking cognizance. (Satish Rai & Anr. Vs State of U.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 432 (Allahabad)
Complaint – Offence triable by Court of Sessions – It is mandatory duty of Magistrate to call upon complainant to examine all witnesses in the list – Magistrate, however, cannot compel the complainant to examine all the prosecution witnesses – Case be committed to Sessions Court if prima facie charge is made out. (Hardev Singh Vs Alla Singh) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 180 (P&H)
Case not exclusively triable by Court of Sessions – Can be committed to Sessions Court when counter case arising out of same occurrence in which the allegation regarding commission of offence exclusively triable by Court of Session is pending in the Court of Sessions for trial. (State of Kerala Vs Annamma & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 730 (Kerala)
Applicability – To attract the provision it is necessary that when the complaint case is filed, police investigation is pending and in progress and the same is not completed – However, where Magistrate has already taken cognizance on Police Report and thereafter complaint is filed, S.210 Cr.P.C. is not attracted. (Nitin Jairam Gadkari Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 76 (Bombay)
Police report – Magistrate is not obliged to act upon and confine himself to the report. (Murali Mohakur @ Mendidhar & Ors. Vs State of Orissa & Anr.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 248 (Orissa)
Cross case – Complaint case and police case in respect of same offence – Magistrate is under an obligation to try both the cases together. (Ram Rattan Vs State of Haryana & Ors.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 50 (P&H)
Cross case – FIR lodged but challan not submitted – In the meanwhile complaint filed in respect of same offence – Magistrate is required to stay the proceedings or can refer the complaint to police under S.156(3) Cr.P.C. – In case police report is submitted and a complaint has been filed then Magistrate is under an obligation to try both the cases together. (Ram Rattan Vs State of Haryana & Ors.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 50 (P&H)
Charge – Revision against – Complainant is not a necessary party to be issued notice of revision. (Radha Devi Vs Shafiq @ Shafaq) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 217 (M.P.)
Charge – At the stage of framing of charge, Court is not required to undertake an elaborate enquiry for the purpose of sifting and weighing the material. (Smt.Shanti Devi & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 209 (Rajasthan)
Charge – Case when not such that there is no iota of evidence, even to have prima facie view that accused has not committed offence, no fault can be found with order framing charge. (Lala Ram Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 212 (Rajasthan)
Charge – Court while framing charge is not supposed to make a roving enquiry in the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if trial is conducted – Court is required to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purposes of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (Himanshu Moorjani Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 401 (Rajasthan)
Charge – Framing of – At the stage of framing of charge Court is not required to meticulously examine and marshal the material available on record as to whether there is sufficient material against the accused which would ultimately result in conviction – Court is prima facie required to consider whether there is sufficient material against the accused to presume the commission of offence – Even strong suspicion about commission of offence is sufficient for framing the charge. (Om Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 735 (Rajasthan)
Charge – If the allegations are vague and from the complaint itself, it shows that the accused has been falsely implicated then the charge is not to be framed – If the charge is framed it will tantamount to abuse of the process of the Court. (Mukesh Rani Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 123 (P&H)
Charge – Purpose of charge is to apprise the accused precisely and consciously the charge to be framed against him – Charge shall contain the particulars with regard to time and place of the alleged offence and the person against whom or the thing in respect of which it was committed as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged – If the charge is defective, which materially prejudice the accused then on basis of such charge conviction cannot be sustained. (Khursid & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 610 (S.C.)
Charge – Revision against – High Court should not interfere at the stage of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused. (Anil Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 284 (Rajasthan)
Charge – Strong suspicion about commission of offence is sufficient for framing charge – Guilt or innocence of accused has to be determined at the time of conclusion of trial after evidence is adduced and not at the stage of framing of charge. (Smt.Shanti Devi & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 209 (Rajasthan)
Charge – There is no binding that charge sheet should be filed only in respect of offence reported or complained of – It depends on evidence collected in course of investigation. (Narasimhaiah Vs State by Inspector of Police) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 519 (Karnataka)
Charge – Framing of – Revision against – If two views are possible then one favouring prosecution has to be taken if evidence collected gives rise to grave suspicion – No ground to interfere if trial Court on basis of evidence finds that accused appears to be connected with offence – Revisional powers cannot be exercised in routine or causal manner. (Himanshu Moorjani Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 401 (Rajasthan)
Charge – At the stage of framing charge Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused – Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused – If Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed – Charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the particular offence. (Vaman Narayan Ghiya Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 518 (Rajasthan)
Charge – Errors in framing of charge – Accused aware of time, date and place of occurrence – No prejudice caused to accused because of error in charge as to place, date and time of occurrence – Improper for appellate Court to have remanded case on this ground – Appellate Court directed to decide appeal on merits. (Nanda Ram & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 565 (Rajasthan)
Charge – Error in framing charge – Accused tried for commission of murder – Wrong section mentioned in charge – It does not cause any prejudice as accused knew that he was being charged for committing murder – Trial not vitiated. (Balwan Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 517 (P&H)
Amount of illegal gratification Rs.138/- but in charge amounted stated to be Rs.140/- – It is a fundamental infirmity, resulting in serious prejudice to the accused – This infirmity is not saved either by S.315 or 464 Cr.P.C. as it has occasioned a failure of justice – Thus, this serious lacuna in the charge also vitiates the trial. (Tirath Prakash (deceased) through his widow Smt.Mithlesh Sharma Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 683 (Delhi)
Charge – Alteration – Charge can be altered at any time before judgment is pronounced – Speaking order justifying reason for alteration of charge is not required as there is no necessity to pass a speaking order showing reason for framing of charge. (Sreedharan Vs State of Kerala) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 638 (Kerala)
Charge – Amending of charge from one u/s 408 IPC to the offence u/s 409 IPC – A charge can be altered at any stage when the trial Court finds it necessary – Impugned order altering charge not caused such a prejudice that it would result in failure of justice – No interference in revision. (Gopal Krishna Patnaik Vs State of Orissa) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 723 (Orissa)
Charge u/s 302 IPC – Additional charge u/s 306 IPC – Offence u/s 306 cannot be said to be a minor offence in relation to an offence u/s 302 IPC within meaning of S.222 Cr.P.C. – Both offences are of distinct and different categories – Basic constituent of an offence u/s 302 is homicidal death whereas u/s 306 it is suicidal death and abetment thereof – Both the charges cannot go together – Order framing additional charge, set aside. (Ghan Shyam @ Subhash Vs State of U.P.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 690 (Allahabad)
Charge – Framing of the charge during trial – Allegation that police had failed to investigate properly – Petitioner praying fresh investigation – Charge framed and case pending for trial – If during trial the trial Court on a consideration of broad probabilities of the case based upon total effect of the evidence and documents produced is satisfied that any addition or alteration of the charge is necessary, it is free to do so – Re-investigation would delay the matter. (Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 736 (S.C.)
Ss.220 & 223 are not controlled by Ss.218 or 219 – In respect of offences committed in the course of one transaction, the limitation provided in S.219 as to inclusion in one trial only three offences committed in a year will not apply. (Manoharan Vs Director General of Police) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 479 (Kerala)
Consolidation of criminal cases – Offences tried before different Magistrates – Defrauding of different people – Each offence is distinct one – Criminal cases cannot be transferred to be tried in a Single Court. (State of Punjab & Anr. Vs Rajesh Syal) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 581 (S.C.)
Dishonour of cheques – Complaint filed for more than three cheques – No ground to quash the complaint – Court may separate the trial to be in conformity with the provisions of S.219 Cr.P.C. (Punjab Tyre House & Ors. Vs State of Gujarat) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 18 (Gujarat)
Three offences in one case within a span of one year – Is restricted to the actual trial and not to the filing of complaint or FIR – Investigating Officer can also investigate and submit one composite charge-sheet – Court can take cognizance and may separate trial to be in conformity with the requirement of S.219 Cr.P.C. (Punjab Tyre House & Ors. Vs State of Gujarat) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 18 (Gujarat)
Cheating in large number of cases – Investigating officer splitting up challans – No irregularity. (N.K.Garg Vs U.T.Chandigarh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 550 (P&H)
Joint trial of two offences of same kind – Can be allowed in summons cases also – Two cheques issued within a span of one year and dishonoured on the same date and parties are common and evidence in the two complaint cases will also be common – Impugned order directing joint trial suffers no illegality. (Gulshan Kumar Ahuja Vs Veena Sharma) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 726 (Delhi)
Offence under Corruption Act and also under IPC in course of same transaction – Accused can be tried by Special Judge for offence under IPC or any other law. (Vivek Gupta Vs Central Bureau of Investigation) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 606 (S.C.)
Charge framed u/s 302 IPC – Evidence to convict u/s 302 IPC not adequate – Trial Court should have framed the charge u/s 304-B, IPC as the death has occasioned within four months from the date of marriage – Case remitted back to the trial Judge for disposal according to law. (Jagannath Pradhan Vs State of Orissa) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 426 (ORISSA)
Alternative charge – Doubtful as to offence whether u/s 304-B or 302 IPC – Sessions Judge framed two charges without mentioning that one is alternative charge – Held, this is a simple irregularity and may be cured by trial Court by amending it. (Mohd.Azeem and Mohd.Idreesh Vs State of U.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 68 (All.)
Charge framed u/s 306 IPC – Accused found not guilty – Accused cannot be convicted u/s 354 IPC – Offence u/s 354 IPC is not a minor offence of S.306 IPC. (Avvaru Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 429 (A.P.)
Charge – Conviction for offence other than charged – U/s 222 (1) when a person is charged with offence consisting of several particulars and combination of some are proved and constitutes minor offence, accused can be convicted inspite of fact that he was not charged for the minor offence. (Dalbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 682 (S.C.)
Charge – Conviction for offence other than charged – U/s 222 (2) Court can convict a accused for minor offence even though charge was for major offence. (Dalbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 682 (S.C.)
Amalgamation – Appellant accused of charges under Prevention of Corruption Act and of offence of conspiracy to defraud State exchequer – Large number of complaints pending – Cases prosecuted by CBI before various Special Courts in the State of Jharkhand and Bihar – 6 such cases pending before Special Courts in State of Jharkhand – All cases have not reached stage of framing of charges – Three cases still at appearance stage – Apart from appellants there are a large number of accused – Most of other accused not applying for joint trial – Main offences under Prevention of Corruption Act is in respect of alleged transaction in that case – Said alleged overt acts cannot be said to be in course of same transaction – Application for amalgamation rightly rejected. (Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav Vs State through CBI) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 441 (S.C.)
Witness failed to turn up inspite of summons, bailable warrants and non-bailable warrants – Court is not justified in closing defence case – Accused has a right to seek attendance of any witness – Court is enjoined with power of compelling such witness to appear unless Court records reason for turning down claim of accused. (Smt.Mallamma Vs State of Karnataka) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 714 (Karnataka)
Accused discharged of offence u/s 307 IPC and case remitted for trial of offence u/s 324 IPC – Injury inflicted by accused was a contused lacerated wound on left parietal region and was opined simple by doctor – At the stage of framing charge though Court has power to sift and weigh evidence but sifting and weighing evidence does not entitle Court to appreciate evidence – Whether accused had intention and requisite knowledge could be arrived at after evidence of witnesses was recorded – Impugned order not sustainable. (State through Public Prosecutor Vs Basudev Martha) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 506 (Bombay)
Three accused – Two charged under Prevention of Corruption Act and also under IPC whereas third accused charged under IPC only – Special Court is competent to try all the three accused at same trial. (Vivek Gupta Vs Central Bureau of Investigation) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 606 (S.C.)
Offence under Prevention of Corruption Act – Provisions of Criminal Procedure Code apply to trials for offence under Prevention of Corruption Act subject to certain modifications as provided in S.22 of the Act unless the application of any provision of the Code is excluded either expressly or by necessary implication – Provision of S.223 Cr.P.C. is application to trial of offence punishable under Prevention of Corruption Act. (Vivek Gupta Vs Central Bureau of Investigation) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 606 (S.C.)
Summons case – Recording of evidence against some of the witnesses and summoning of the others is not permissible. (Jitendra Narottam Das Mehrotra & Ors. Vs State & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 710 (Delhi)
Company – Dishonour of cheque – Complaint against Company, its directors and its officers who signed and issued cheques – Summons and warrants against Company and its Directors not served – Case split up – Prosecution continued only against officers who signed cheques – Prosecution of company is not sine qua non for prosecution of other persons – If for some reasons Company cannot be prosecuted then other persons cannot on that score escape from penal liability. (K.Chandrasekhar & Anr. Vs Mac Charles India Limited, Bangalore) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 434 (Karnataka)
Prosecution witnesses given up – Can be examined as defence witness. (Banti @ Guddu Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 27 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 608 (S.C.)
Charge – Alteration – Charge can be altered at any stage of the proceedings depending upon the evidence adduced in the case. (State of Maharashtra Vs Salman Salim Khan & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 853 (S.C.)
Charge – Revision against – Petitioner charged under Ss.304-B and 498-A – Wife of petitioner committed suicide leaving suicide note and letters completely exonerating the petitioners – It is a case of innocence and not of guilt of the petitioners – Even at the stage of charge court has power to sift and weigh the evidence although for a limited purpose of finding out whether prima facie case was made out – Petitioners discharged. (Sarbans Singh & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 790 (Delhi)
Discharge of accused at the stage of framing charge – If the evidence which prosecution proposes to adduce to prove guilt of accused, even if fully accepted does not show any offence committed by accused then accused deserves to be discharged. (State of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 312 (S.C.)
Fire in laboratory and a worker working at Distillator machine died – Deceased had put oil in machine and there were fumes which were inflammable – Contention that allegations could attract offence of rash and negligent act u/s 304-A IPC – There was no fire extinguisher where explosive substances were stored and room in which distillation unit was installed was blocked by the unit – Word “Act” includes intentional doing as well intentional non-doing – Prima facie there was material against accused to frame charge u/s 304 IPC. (Narendra & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 294 (Rajasthan)
Framing of charge – Accused is at liberty to place any document before trial judge to claim discharge – However, accused cannot summon record of an earlier case. (Surinder Kumar Tiku Vs The State through C.B.I.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 179 (P&H)
Framing of charge – Cognizance of offence – Accused does not have any right to produce any material at the time of framing charge – Moreover, accused cannot seek production of documents at that stage. (State of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 312 (S.C.)
Charge – At the stage of framing charge Court is not required to marshal material on record but has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient material against accused – Even strong suspicion about commission of offence is sufficient for framing of charge. (Narendra & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 294 (Rajasthan)
Charge – At the stage of framing charge Court is required to evaluate the material evidence and to find out as to whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. (Santosh Vishwakarma & Anr. Vs State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh)) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 752 (M.P.)
Charge – Framing of – At the stage of framing charge Court has to see whether there is ground for assuming that the accused has committed an offence or whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused – If the allegations in the F.I.R. and other evidence collected during investigation make out a prima facie offence punishable Court shall frame charge – Whether offence shall be proved or not shall be considered on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution. (Satish Rai & Anr. Vs State of U.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 432 (Allahabad)
Charge – At the stage of charge, evidence sufficient to prove the charge is not necessary – If there is evidence to presume that offence is committed, charge can be framed. (Kamlesh Kumar & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 603 (Allahabad)
Charge – At the stage of framing charge it is not necessary that there should be sufficient evidence, which is likely to prove the charge – Only prima facie evidence is sufficient from which it may be presumed that the accused would have committed offence. (Dr.Hemand Kumar Taneja Vs State of U.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 460 (Allahabad)
Charge – Can be quashed if evidence which prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence cannot show that the accused committed the particular offence. (State (CBI) Vs Partha Sanyal) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 701 (Gauhati)
Charge – Failure to mention the provision is only an irregularity but not to mention the nature of offence committed, in the charge, is not a mere irregularity. (Bala Seetharamaiah Vs Perike S.Rao & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)
Framing of charge without supply of copy of statement of complainant – Trial Court directed to provide copy of statement of the informant within seven days – Applicant at liberty to seek change or amendment of charge by filing an application. (Suresh Kumar Upadhayay & Anr. Vs State of U.P.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 699 (Allahabad)
Framing of charge – Production of documents – Trial Court cannot allow accused to produce any document at the stage of framing charges – However, High Court has such power to allow the accused under section 482 of the Code or under Article 226 of the Constitution. (State of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 312 (S.C.)
Mentioning of wrong section in charge – Accused not handicapped from meeting the case against him or otherwise suffered any prejudice – Trial and conviction cannot be set aside. (Durgo Bai & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 237 (S.C.)
It is open to an accused to withdraw his claim to be tried and plead guilty in the course of trial. (Santhosh Vs State of Kerala) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 25 (Kerala)
Prosecution is not bound to examine each and every person who has been named as witness – A person named as a witness may be given up when there is material to show that he has been gained over or that there is no likelihood of the witness speaking the truth in the Court. (Zahira Habibulla H.Sheikh & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 195 (S.C.)
Conviction and sentence of 5 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- u/s 326 IPC and S.27 Arms Act – High Court reduced sentence to already undergone i.e. 63 days as accused was 60 years of age and to keep peace in village and families of parties – Order of High Court set aside and custodial sentence fixed at 18 months. (Surjit Singh Vs Nahara Ram & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 349 (S.C.)
Sentence – Awarding of sentence is not a mere formality – Where statute has given Court choice of sentence with maximum and minimum limit then an element of discretion is vested with the Court – This discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically – Sentence awarded should neither excessively harsh nor ridiculously low. (Deo Narain Mandal Vs State of U.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 583 (S.C.)
Sentence – Hearing of accused through counsel – If accused had engaged a counsel Court can ask the counsel as to whether he had anything to say about the sentence. (Surendra Pal Shivbalakpal Vs State of Gujarat) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 809 (S.C.)
Sentence – Quantum – Duty of Court – Court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. (State of U.P. Vs Kishan) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 343 (S.C.)
Accused having nothing to say on the question of sentence – It shows that accused has no repentance for the act he committed – Death penalty calls for no interference. (Holiram Bordoloi Vs State of Assam) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 559 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 584 (S.C.)
Conviction – Sentence – It is discretion of Court which is to be exercised on sound judicial principles which includes nature of crime, manner and method of commission thereof, the position and condition of victim and also matters attributable personally to the accused like his age, health, social background, mental condition etc. (The Assistant Commissioner, Assessment-II, Bangalore & Ors. Vs M/s Velliappa Textiles Ltd. & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 567 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 692 (S.C.)
Conviction in appeal – Sentence awarded without opportunity of hearing – Remand – Is an exception, not the rule and ought, therefore, to be avoided as far as possible in the interest of expeditious though fair, disposal of case – If conviction is maintained in appeal, matter need not be remanded and Supreme Court can hear on sentence and pass appropriate sentence. (Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 674 (S.C.)
Provision is mandatory – It is duty of Court to apprise accused of valuable right of being heard before sentence is awarded for the offence he has committed. (Jaisi Ram Vs State of U.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 591 (Allahabad)
Charge – Framing of charge is not an interlocutory order as it affects material rights of the parties – Revision is maintainable. (Sudesh Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Delhi) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 585 (Delhi)
Charge – Stage of framing of charge is not the stage for weighing the pros and cons of all the implications of the materials nor for sifting the materials presented by the prosecution – Exercise at this stage should be confined to considering the police report and the documents to decide whether the allegations against the accused are “groundless” or whether “there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offences”. (Bherulal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 503 (Raj.)
Defence evidence – Closed by order after giving one opportunity – Held, accused is entitled to one more opportunity to produce one witness in defence. (Sheria @ Sher Khan @ Syed Jumalludeen Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 579 (Raj.) S.243(2) – Complainant – Cannot be resummoned for cross-examination at the instance of accused – ‘Any witness’ does not include the complainant. (Kamarudheen Vs Shoukkathali) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 76 (Kerala)
Defence witnesses – Summoning – Cannot be refused on the ground that application is not filed prior to entering of the defence evidence and that undertaking to pay expenses of the defence witnesses has not been given. (Trilok Singh Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 569 (Raj.)
Cross examination of prosecution witnesses produced at enquiry stage in a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report – No right to cross examine prosecution witnesses produced at the enquiry stage. (Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 473 (Kerala)
At the stage of S.245(1) Magistrate is not expected to resort to exercise of weighing evidence in golden scale – Magistrate need only consider whether a case has been made out which if unrebutted would warrant a conviction. (Kunhali Haji Vs State of Kerala) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 580 (Kerala)
Discharge petition – To be decided on the basis of material available on record – Accused cannot be allowed to summon any document at that stage. (M.Sathiamoorthi Vs State) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 721 (Madras)
Witnesses examined before framing of charge – Accused has a right to cross examination all the witnesses examined in pre-charge stage and if he wants he can leave some of them – Court is to recall the witnesses on the request of the accused – Court to adopt coercive method in case PWs fail to appear despite service. (Swaran Kaur Vs Gurdev Singh & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 437 (P&H)
Punishment – Quantum – Strict compliance of the provision is mandatory – Hearing not confined merely to hearing of oral submissions – It is the duty of the Court to give opportunity to the accused to produce evidence or other material before the Court having a bearing on the question of sentence. (Bhirug Vs State of U.P.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 323 (All.)
Offence under Section 3 of the Act is non-compoundable and non-cognizable – Provision of Section 249 of the Code is applicable in case of a complaint filed under Section 3 of the Act. (Suresh Kumar & Ors. Vs Railway Protection Force & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 205 (P&H)
Complaint – Non appearance of complainant – Complaint to be dismissed only when Court considers the presence of the complainant imperative or necessary for the trial – When presence of complainant is not required, Magistrate does not vest with the power to dismiss the complaint for non prosecution or to discharge the accused. (Suresh Kumar & Ors. Vs Railway Protection Force & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 205 (P&H)
Complaint – Absence of complainant – Offence exclusively triable by Sessions Court – Magistrate can dismiss complaint but cannot discharge the accused – Discharge virtually gives a clean chit to the accused whereas dismissal of complaint enables the complainant to file a fresh complaint – With the discharge of an accused, the remedies to the complainant are closed once for all, whereas in case of dismissal, he can reagitate the matter, subject to the relevant provisions of law. (Bandarupalli Eswara Reddy Vs Thonnati Adhi Reddy & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 255 (A.P.)
Summons case – Substance of accusation read over to accused and he denied the same – Case fixed for evidence – Held, there is no illegality or irregularity in order of Magistrate fixing case for evidence. (Luna Ram & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 65 (Rajasthan)
Summons case – No question of framing charge in summons case as such there is no question of discharge – Question whether ingredients of offence in question are established has to be considered at stage of final order and not at stage of reading over contents of accusation to accused – Order of Magistrate reading over contents of accusation not suffering from any basic illegality or infirmity – No interference in revision. (Dr.Kamal Gurvani Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 428 (Rajasthan)
Defence witness – Summoning of – Accused himself not examined as a witness – His application to summon defence witness cannot be rejected on the ground that he should first himself be examined as a witness. (B.M.Arif Vs Boston Tea (India) Limited, Mangalore) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 475 (Karnataka)
Complainant – Examination as witness of accused – As of right, the accused in a case cannot get the complainant examined as his witness. (Thomas Vs Vijayakumari) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 345 (Kerala)
Complaint – Dismissal in default – Counsel for complainant moved an application praying exemption from personal appearance on plea that telegram was received that complainant a 70 years old person was not well – Magistrate without assigning any reason rejected the application – Impugned order not justified and hence set aside. (Banubai Vs Shivasharanappa) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 203 (Karnataka)
Complaint u/s 494 IPC dismissed for default – Second complaint is maintainable. (Maya Devi Vs Satyawan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 376 (P&H)
Death of complainant – Cognizance of offence u/ss 420, 468 IPC and S.138 NI Act – Death of complainant does not ipso facto terminate the criminal proceedings more so when the son of complainant has stepped in and wanted to continue with the case. (Ajay Kumar Agarwal & Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand & Anr.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 600 (Jharkhand)
Complaint – Dismissal in default – In results into acquittal of accused – Remedy is that of appeal and not revision. (Krisan Kumar Gupta Vs Mohammed Jaros) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 179 (Delhi)
Complaint – Non appearance of complainant – Dismissal for default – It is a final order – Magistrate has no inherent power to restore the complaint. (Ram Bhaj Jain Vs M/s Brar Rice and General Mills) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 592 (P&H)
Complaint – Non appearance of complainant – Option lies with the Magistrate either to dismiss the complaint or to adjourn the case for some reason if the Magistrate thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing. (Krisan Kumar Gupta Vs Mohammed Jaros) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 179 (Delhi)
Dishonour of cheque – Complaint – Dismissal in default – For absence on one occasion, the complaint should not be dismissed in the interest of substantial criminal justice. (Ampolu Apparao Vs Public Prosecutor) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 585 (A.P.)
Dishonour of cheque – Complaint – Non appearance of complainant – Complaint dismissed in default – Order of dismissal set aside – Presence of complainant was not required on that day – Magistrate could dispense with appearance of complainant under S.256 Cr.P.C. (Bhagwant Singh Vs M/s Suresh Steel Industries) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 21 (P&H)
Preliminary evidence recorded and summons issued – Complaint dismissed in default on subsequent date – It has the effect of acquittal – Complainant has remedy of appeal – Revision not maintainable. (H.P.Financial Corporation Vs M/s Continental Spinners Ltd.) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 452 (H.P.)
Absence of complainant – Dismissal in default – Mistake in noting date of hearing – Supported by affidavit as well as file cover and case diary of counsel – There is sufficient cause which prevented the complainant and the Counsel from appearing on the date of hearing – Complaint ordered to be restored. (Indocon Micro Engineers Vs Pine Technology P.Ltd.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 254 (Delhi)
Complain – Dismissal in default for non appearance of complainant – Magistrate has no power to restore the complaint. (Bhagwant Singh Vs M/s Suresh Steel Industries) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 21 (P&H)
Complaint – Death of complainant – Accused is not entitled to acquittal – Magistrate has ample power to dispense with the complainant from his personal attendance and proceed with the case where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by an officer conducting the prosecution. (Bharat Joitaram Patel Vs Kanubhai J.Shah) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 181 (Guj.)
Complaint – Death of complainant before issuance of summons – S.256 is not applicable – Order dismissing application of L.Rs for bringing them on record and order of dismissal of complaint set aside – Case remanded for passing appropriate orders on complaint and application. (Lrs. of Ratanlal Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 674 (Rajasthan)
Complaint – Absence of complainant – Magistrate is not bound to dismiss complaint – He may adjourn the hearing – He has to exercise discretion judicially. (Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs Mohammed Jaros) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 263 (Delhi)
Complaint – Dismissal in default – Case fixed for defence evidence – Complainant absent on that date – Order dismissing complaint for absence of complainant is illegal and the same set aside. (Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138). (Mittal Book and Stationers Vs Mahendra Singh Solanki) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 206 (Raj.)
Complaint – Dismissal for default – Dismissal at stage of recording pre-summoning evidence – Revision – As the respondent has not been served as yet as such notice of the petition need not be issued to them. (Indocon Micro Engineers Vs Pine Technology P.Ltd.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 254 (Delhi)
Dismissal for default – Restoration – Appeal or revision dismissed for default and not on merits can be readmitted for hearing on merits if sufficient cause for such default is shown – Same principle also applies to a petition u/s 482 of the Code. (Geeta Kumari & Anr. Vs State of H.P. & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 105 (H.P.)
Absence of complainant on a date when case is fixed for recording statement of complainant and witnesses – Cannot be said that personal attendance of complainant is not necessary on such a date – Acquittal of accused for want of evidence – Order upheld. (M/s.Laxmi Steel Industries Vs State & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 224 (Rajasthan)
Complaint – Dismissal for default – Complainant pursuing his case seriously and appearing on every hearing – When the case was not fixed for evidence of complainant, Magistrate could dispense with the appearance of complainant u/s 256 Cr.P.C. and adjourn the case. (Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs Mangat Rai) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 609 (P&H)
Complaint – Absence of complainant – Dismissal of complaint – Since order results in acquittal of accused, appeal and not revision lies – Impugned order passed in revision by Sessions Court restoring complaint is liable to be set aside. (Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs Mohammed Jaros) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 263 (Delhi)
Dishonour of cheque – Complaint – Dismissal for default – Setting aside order – Charge framed – Complainant pursing complaint for two years – Magistrate could adjourn the case and could dispense with personal attendance of complainant – Efforts of Magistrate should be to dispose of case on merits instead of dismissing it in default – Held, under the circumstances Magistrate was wholly unjustified in dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution. (Sant Lal Bhatia Vs City Credit and Leasing Company) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 291 (P&H)
Prisoner not to be removed from Central Jail – Order of State Govt. – Material for such order not made available to prisoner as Govt. claimed privilege – Order not illegal. (Abdul Latif Vs Central Bureau of Investigation) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 234 (P&H)
Video conferencing – Recording of evidence – Evidence of witness can be recorded by video conferencing if accused and/or his pleader are present when evidence is recorded in presence of accused and as a matter of prudence evidence by video-conferencing in open Court should be only if the witness is in a country which has an extradition treaty with India and under whose laws Contempt of Court and perjury are also punishable. (The State of Maharashtra Vs Dr.Praful B.Desai & Anr.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 259 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 320 (S.C.)
Video conferencing – Recording of evidence – A witness living in USA not willing to come to India but willing to give evidence – His evidence be recorded by way of video conferencing. (The State of Maharashtra Vs Dr.Praful B.Desai & Anr.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 259 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 320 (S.C.)
Video conferencing – Where the attendance of a witness cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience the Court can consider issuing a commission to record the evidence by way of video conferencing. (The State of Maharashtra Vs Dr.Praful B.Desai & Anr.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 259 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 320 (S.C.)
Recording of evidence in presence of accused – Non compliance – Does not vitiate trial – Provision empowers trial Court to dispense with personal attendance of accused – Evidence can be recorded in presence of Counsel for accused – Reading over to accused, of deposition of witnesses recorded in presence of Counsel for accused, is to be held sufficient. (Jinnappa Pareesh Hulakund Vs State of Karnataka) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 95 (Kant.)
Appellant absconded when trial took place against other three accused – Eight prosecution witnesses examined – Three other accused acquitted – Appellant arrested and put on trial – Appellant himself moved application to consider evidence of eight witnesses without calling them – Conviction of appellant – Appellant’s application to adopt evidence recorded behind his back is of little consequence – Trial Court was required to make endeavours to procure presence of those witnesses – Nothing to suggest that witnesses were either dead or incapable of giving evidence – Trial was in breach of S.299 Cr.P.C. – Conviction cannot be sustained – Retrial ordered. (Kamal Prasad Singh Vs State of Bihar) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 506 (Patna)
Evidence recorded by Court in language not understood by accused – Proceedings of the Court not properly explained to accused in the language understood by him – Proceedings set aside – De novo trial ordered. (K.M.Subramani Vs State of A.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 283 (A.P.)
Handwriting expert – Report not admissible in evidence without examining the author and the other side given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. (Nirmal Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 333 (P&H)
On the facts of each case Court has to exercise discretion whether expert has to be examined – Whether an analyst or an official is to be summoned and whether there is serious infirmity in not examining such witness etc. is to be decided on the facts of each case. (State of Kerala Vs Arun Valenchery) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 355 (Kerala)
Post mortem report – Cannot be admitted in evidence without examining the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination. (Prafulla @ Mangulu Pradhan Vs State of Orissa) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 642 (Orissa)
Report of Govt. Scientific Expert designated u/s 293(4) is perse admissible in evidence – Court has discretion to summon and examine the expert to prove the report if Court thinks it proper. (State of Punjab Vs Balraj Singh Takhar) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 393 (P&H)
Report of Assistant Director (Documents) Forensic Science Laboratory – Perse admissible – Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director of State Forensic Laboratory are designated govt. scientific experts and it is not necessary to summon them to prove their report. (State of Punjab Vs Balraj Singh Takhar) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 393 (P&H)
Affidavit – Defective verification – Affidavit is not admissible in evidence – Verification that affidavit is correct on basis of knowledge and belief and no part of it is untrue and no fact has been concealed – Verification is defective – S.297(2) Cr.P.C. provides that “Affidavit shall be confined to, and shall state separately, such facts as the deponent is able to prove from his own knowledge and such facts as he has reasonable ground to belief to be true, and in the latter case, the deponent shall clearly state the grounds of such relief – In the instant case affidavit is not admissible in evidence. (Santokh Singh @ Sokha Vs The State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 563 (P&H)
For application of the provision there should be definite finding that witness died at the time of trial or became incapable of giving evidence – Court may require it to be corroborated by circumstances of case and other evidence adduced in the case. (State Vs Swarnappan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 223 (Kerala)
Prescribed procedure to be followed for taking evidence in absence of accused – The requirement of the statutory provision cannot be dispensed with as a result of agreement between the parties. (Kamal Prasad Singh Vs State of Bihar) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 506 (Patna)
Some accused declared proclaimed offenders and some put on trial – Accused who faced trial acquitted as prosecution witnesses did not support prosecution – This is no ground to quash proceedings against co-accused who absconded – Evidence of P.Ws cannot be taken into consideration qua them in view of S.299 Cr.P.C. – It would be premature to presume that P.Ws. to be examined against them will render the same version as was given by them against the co-accused. (Jasbir Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 520 (P&H)
Public servant – Corruption case – Acquittal due to invalid sanction for prosecution – Accused cannot be tried again after obtaining valid sanction – No one can be vexed twice for the same offence as it will be double jeopardy. (Bant Singh Vs The State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 348 (P&H)
Complaint u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and S.420 IPC – Accused summoned in offence u/s 138 only – Complaint dismissed for want of prosecution – Amounts to acquittal – Second complaint u/s 420 IPC not maintainable even if no summoning order was issued u/s 420 IPC. (Lekh Raj Vs Pardeep Sharma) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 76 (P&H)
Acquittal during trial before taking entire evidence – The accused can be said to be a person who has once been tried and acquitted. (Eciyo Coconut Oils Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Kerala) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 459 (Kerala)
Complaint withdrawn – Accused acquitted – Another complaint filed alleging commission of the same offence implicating one more accused – Second complaint is not maintainable. (Keciyo Coconut Oils Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 492 (KERALA)
Double jeopardy – Complaint u/ss 468/471 dismissed – Second complaint on same set of facts by brother of complainant – Not maintainable. (Gian Chand Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 523 (P&H)
Double jeopardy – Conviction by foreign Court – Trial of accused u/s 420 IPC in India is not barred – Conviction by foreign Court cannot be said to be for the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. (Rajan Vs State of Kerala) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 439 (Kerala)
Trial commenced – Withdrawal of complaint sought and allowed – Another complaint alleging commission of same offence on the basis of same set of facts is barred. (Eciyo Coconut Oils Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Kerala) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 459 (Kerala)
Acquittal of co-accused – Co-accused cannot claim acquittal on that basis. (Jasbir Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 520 (P&H)
Dispensing with personal appearance of accused in a summons case – It is judicial discretion of Magistrate to dispense with personal attendance of accused either throughout or at a particular stage if personal appearance would cause serious difficulties and inconvenience and comparative advantage would not overweigh non-appearance. (Durowelds Private Limited Vs The Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 106 (Orissa)
Exemption from personal appearance – Accused involved in cases in different places – Unable to attend Court – Seeking exemption from personal appearance – Held, accused to move trial Court itself, which is competent to grant such permission – Where accused has not moved trial Court for grant of such permission, High Court cannot grant same in exercise of its inherent powers. (S.Madhava Vs Canbank Factors Limited, Bangalore & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 836 (Karnataka)
Accomplice – An accomplice by becoming an approver becomes a prosecution witness and therefore his evidence must pass the double test viz. (i) his evidence must be reliable and (ii) it should be sufficiently corroborated. (Mitra Prasad Rai Vs State of Sikkim) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 601 (Sikkim)
Approver – Accused cannot claim right to cross examine approver before Committal Court. (State Vs Saravanan & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 571 (Madras)
Pardon – A person cab be charged in respect of the same transaction under different Acts – Pardon would operate in respects of all offences pertaining to that transaction – However pardon does not operate in respect of a transaction or act entirely unconnected with the offence in respect of which pardon has been granted. (Dipesh Chandak Vs Union of India) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 472 (S.C.)
Local inspection by Magistrate – Record of memorandum prepared after inspection cannot be used for preparation of the background for appreciating evidence of witnesses – Such preparation is to be made by parties themselves by leading evidence in the form of examination of their own witnesses or cross-examination of witnesses examined by the opposite party. (Maleedu Venkanna Vs State of A.P.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 489 (A.P.)
Local inspection – It is for the purpose of properly appreciating the evidence already recorded during the trial – Memorandum of spot inspection recorded by the trial Judge has to be appreciated in conjunction with the evidence already recorded – Any omission and/or commission in the memorandum recorded by the trial Judge by itself would not constitute material irregularity, which would vitiate the prosecution case. (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Mast Ram) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 766 (S.C.)
Local Inspection – Magistrate is empowered to undertake local inspection – Parties to the proceedings can make an application for local inspection by Presiding Officer – Local inspection has to be undertaken in exceptional cases as very rarely the circumstances continue to exist in the same manner and form as on the date of occurrence of the offence. (Maleedu Venkanna & Ors. Vs State of A.P.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 489 (A.P.)
Summoning of Radiologist for giving evidence and for submitting X-ray reports by exercise of power u/s 311 Part II – It is not prosecution lacuna of not summoning the Radiologist and producing X-rays as the prosecution has summoned the concerned doctor who treated the injured persons and gave the wound certificate – Summoning of the Radiologist to adduce evidence and produce X-ray reports cannot be said to be filling up of prosecution lacuna. (Palacharla Rama Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 623 (A.P.)
Affidavit tendered in evidence but deponent not put up for cross examination – After closure of evidence prosecution sought to summon deponent so as to offer him for cross examination – Nothing new was brought on record by prosecution – Application allowed. (Darbara Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 601 (P&H)
Case fixed for pronouncement of judgment – Summoning of witnesses – If evidence of witnesses to be summoned is essential to the just decision of the case, witnesses can be summoned and examined in the case. (Lalit Bagrecha Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 376 (Rajasthan)
Court can permit prosecution to examine any witness though he is not named in the list of witnesses. (Rajwinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 309 (P&H)
Court has suo motu power to summon any person as a witness which is essential for the just decision of the case – In the instant case doctor examined has not produced all the records – It cannot be said that summoning of the Radiologist is to fill up the gap in the prosecution case. (Palacharla Rama Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 623 (A.P.)
Decree of civil court – Sought to be produced at belated stage – Decree having material bearing on the proof of the petitioner’s case – Delay can be compensated by costs – Application allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/-. (Ram Saran Vs Jasmer Singh) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 234(1) (P&H)
Defence witness – Summoning of eye witness whose statement in Court has already been recorded cannot be summoned as a defence witness. (Anwar Ali Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 531 (Rajasthan)
Further cross examination – Subsequent to statement of prosecutrix in Court she gave another statement in Court of SDM where she stated that she earlier gave statement under threat and accused had not committed any rape on her with the help of co-accused – An affidavit to this effect also filed – Application of accused allowed and prosecutrix to be recalled for further cross examination on behalf of the accused. (Sharawan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 755 (Rajasthan)
Material witness not examined – Advocate sought to be examined to prove legal notice served by him – Earlier an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for adducing additional evidence by allowing complainant to appear as his own witness to prove the service of legal notice dismissed – Held, for just decision of the case it is essential to examine the Advocate as a witness to show whether notice had been served on the accused – No prejudice would be caused in reaching the truth or falsity of the service of notice on accused and if the evidence of material witness was left out due to inadvertence or negligence, the Court’s function to render just decision by examining him in no case will cause prejudice to the accused – Earlier dismissal of application for additional evidence does not come in the way in deciding the present application. (Jagir Singh Sidhu Vs Harbeant Singh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 199 (P&H)
Material witness not examined – Advocate sought to be examined who served the legal notice – If material witness is left out due to inadvertence or negligence, Court’s function is to render just decision by examining him and no prejudice will be caused to the accused. (Jagir Singh Sidhu Vs Harbeant Singh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 199 (P&H)
Order to summon doctor by warrant of arrest – Prosecution not making any effort to produce that witness despite number of adjournments – No justification to make such an order on second application of prosecution. (Ram Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 107 (Rajasthan)
Recall of a witness – Court has plenary power to summon or recall any witness at any stage under Section 311, Cr.P.C. if there exists justifiable reason to do so in the interest of justice, but the Court should act with circumspection and exercise power sparingly. (Udaibir & Ors. Vs State of U.P.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 600 (All.)
Recall of a witness – Witness fully cross-examined – Application moved when the case was listed for arguments for recall of witnesses on ground that they filed affidavit that they gave wrong evidence – It appears that subsequent attempt is made by the defence to win over the prosecution witnesses – Application rightly rejected by trial Court. (Udaibir & Ors. Vs State of U.P.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 600 (All.)
Recall of witness for further cross examination – Nothing extra ordinary stated by witness on the basis of which further cross examination of the witness has been sought – Recall of witness is merely for the purpose to delay the conclusion of trial – Application dismissed. (Maharaja Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 324 (P&H)
Unexamined prosecution witness – Can be examined as defence witness – Such witness cannot be examined as prosecution witness at the behest of accused. (Deorao Marotrao Bhagatkar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 877 (Bombay)
Witness bound down but failing to appear on the next date – Evidence closed – Instead of closing the evidence Court should have procured their presence by the use of its own might – Opportunity given to petitioner to summon the witnesses. (Ms.Rashidan & Ors. Vs Baaz Ali) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 549 (P&H)
Witness – Recall – PWs examined – Accused thereafter obtaining affidavits from PWs to the effect that they had deposed falsely – Request of accused to recall the PWs rightly dismissed – It is evident that affidavits were procured by giving some allurement – Accused was making mockery of process of law. (Jitender Vs State of Haryana & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 98 (P&H)
Witness – Summoning of a witness whose name is not mentioned in the list of witnesses – Court has discretion to call an additional witness at any stage for just and proper decision of the case. (Vijay Kumar Vs Kamla Rani) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 389 (P&H)
Application for summoning doctor and hospital record after closure of evidence of defence – Application by complainant under no objection of prosecutor for summoning doctor with concerned record – Documents sought to be summoned referred to in evidence of PW 5 – Conduct of prosecution not completely left in hands of complaint’s counsel – Application cannot be rejected merely because of its being filed, after close of defence evidence – Evidence in question essential for just decision of case – Lapse on part of investigating agency in not collecting same during investigation cannot be allowed to cause injustice – Application to summon doctor with record allowed. (Sama Ram Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 304 (Rajasthan)
Recall of a witness – Refusal – Order is an interlocutory order – Revision against – Not maintainable. (Sanjay & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 376 (P&H)
Recall of three prosecution witness for further cross examination – Application filed after 25 witnesses had been examined and trial was at concluding stage – Application rightly held to be delaying tactics in trial pending for last 20 years – Revision against that order rightly rejected by Sessions Judge – No grave error or miscarriage of justice pointed out – Inherent jurisdiction of Court misused by petitioner on a frivolous cause – Petition dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.1500/-. (Surendra Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 339 (Raj.)
Recall of witness for further cross examination – Witness cross examined comprehensively – Useless to recall witness for further cross examination – Application for recall not entertainable. (Prem Vs State of Uttaranchal) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 484 (Uttaranchal)
Recall of witness – Allowed with costs of Rs.3000/- – Out of this Rs.1,000/- ordered to be recovered from the witness on the ground that he did not made the complete statement and also did not brought to the notice of the Court the medical report, made by him – Negligence is on part of prosecution and not part of witness to point out relevant document – Held, entire cost to be borne by prosecution. (Dr.Kedar Nath Soni Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 151 (Rajasthan)
Summoning of doctor as defence witness – Application rejected – Order passed without considering substance of application as also provision of law – Order not revealing how much time had already been given to accused – Evidence of doctor essential for just decision of case – Trial Court directed to decide application afresh. (Atar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 662 (Rajasthan)
Summoning of medical jurist – Evidence of medical jurist essential in case – Medical jurist ordered to be summoned as a witness. (Sunit Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 61 (Rajasthan)
Several accused – Each of accused must be questioned separately about material substance against him – Requirement is mandatory and non compliance thereof vitiates trial and order of conviction – Where Magistrate had examined all three accused together and recorded their joint statement, conviction of only one of them, is not sustainable in law – Such order of conviction is to be set aside and matter remitted to trial Court for retrial from stage of recoding statement of accused. (Venkateshappa Vs State by Mulbagal Police) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 169 (Kant.)
Exact amount of gratification – Not put in examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – Held, accused is deprived of an opportunity to explain the precise case against him – This is a serious omission which goes to the root of the matter and cannot be said to be a mere irregularity. (Tirath Prakash (deceased) through his widow Smt.Mithlesh Sharma Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 683 (Delhi)
Statement of accused recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – Court can consider admissions made by accused as his explanation u/s 106 of Evidence Act. (State of Maharashtra Vs Shivaji Anandrao Chede) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 538 (Bombay)
Admission/confession made by accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – Court can rely and take into consideration such admission/confession. (State of Maharashtra Vs Shivaji Anandrao Chede) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 538 (Bombay)
All incriminating circumstances of whatever nature which are to be used against the accused must be put to the accused so that accused is able to offer explanation – If the incriminating circumstances are not put to the accused, the same cannot be used or made basis of conviction. (Nitaram Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 614 (Bombay)
All incriminating circumstances to be put to accused in his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. so that he can offer explanation in respect of same – It is duty of Public Prosecutor to ensure that all incriminating circumstances are put to accused for his explanation – Trial Court itself should go through statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. before confrontations and should not simply rely upon PP and defence counsel. (Ramanna Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 542 (Bombay)
Deaf and unable to understand questions – Trial Court observed that accused was hard of hearing and questionnaire prepared in English was put to him to be answered – Accused knew English language – No illegality in the procedure. (Ian Roylance Stillman Vs State of H.P.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 417 (H.P)
Examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – It is imperative on the court to record the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused persons so as to give opportunity to the accused persons to explain any incriminating circumstance proved by the prosecution – If such opportunity is not afforded, the incriminating piece of evidence available in the prosecution evidence against the accused cannot be relied upon for the purpose of recording the conviction of the accused person. (Parsuram Pandey & Ors. Vs The State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 688 (S.C.)
Examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – It is obligatory on the part of the trial Court to examine the accused for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in evidence against him – If such opportunity is not afforded, the incriminating pieces of evidence available in the prosecution evidence cannot be relied on for the purpose of recording conviction of the accused persons. (Lallu Manjhi Vs State of Jharkhand) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 392 (S.C.) : 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 553 (S.C.)
Examination of accused u/s 313 is not an empty formality – After recording the entire prosecution evidence various items of evidence which had been produced by the prosecution should be put to accused in the form of question and he should be given an opportunity to give his explanation. (Naval Kishore Singh Vs State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 267 (S.C.)
Examination of accused – Incriminating evidence if not put to accused to explain cannot be relied on – Evidence of identification of accused by witnesses in Court preceded by test identification parade not put to accused to explain a case of dacoity – Such evidence cannot be taken into consideration. (Nirmal Pasi & Anr. Vs State of Bihar) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 32 (S.C.)
Examination of accused – Is for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in evidence against him and accused cannot be confronted with any circumstances which is not in evidence. (Kewal Ram Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 84 (Rajasthan)
Examination under Section 313 of the Code is not an empty formality – Purpose is to bring to the notice of the accused the materials brought on record by the prosecution to substantiate its accusations – An opportunity is granted to the accused to explain incriminating circumstances against him and have his say in the background of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. (Damodar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 361 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 567 (S.C.)
General questioning of the accused by observing that he had heard the prosecution evidence and what he has to say about it – Amounts to non compliance of the provision of S.313 Cr.P.C. (Mohammad Isha Vs State of Haryana ) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 433 (P&H)
Improper recording of statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – However, no prejudice shown to have been caused to accused on account of irregular, imperfect statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – Held, accused is not entitled for any benefit for the lacuna in recording the statement of accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. (Parsuram Pandey & Ors. Vs The State of Bihar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 688 (S.C.)
Personal appearance – Exemption – Magistrate can exempt accused from personal appearance at the stage of his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – Counsel can represent the accused and answer questions on his behalf provided accused files affidavit (i) narrating the facts, to satisfy the Court, if his real difficulties to be physically present in Court, (ii) assuring that no prejudice would be caused to him in any manner, by dispensing with his personal presence during such questioning, and (iii) undertaking that he would not raise any grievance on the score at any stage of the case. (Mohd. Sajid Qureshi & Ors. Vs R.Prathap & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 234 (A.P.)
Plea of alibi – Denial u/s 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be treated on the same footing as plea of alibi which is to be specifically raised in the form of evidence by the accused. (Sukhdev Bhimrao Hastapure Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 183 (Bombay)
Purpose and object – It is an opportunity to the accused to explain the incriminating material which has surfaced on record – It is not an idle formality – It is obligation on the Court to question the accused on the evidence and circumstances appearing against him so as to apprise him of the exact case which he is required to meet – Omission to put some points does not vitiate trial but failure to put questions on specific and vital points and circumstances undoubtedly vitiates the trial because it apparently occasions prejudice to him. (Tirath Prakash (deceased) through his widow Smt.Mithlesh Sharma Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 683 (Delhi)
Question of vital nature – When not put to accused – Such omission alone should not result in setting aside the conviction – Effort should be made to undo or correct the lapse – If it is not possible to correct it by any means the Court should then consider the impact of the lapse on the overall aspect of the case – After keeping that particular item of evidence aside, if the remaining evidence is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused, the lapse does not matter much, and can be sidelined justifiably – But if the lapse is so vital as would affect the entire case, the appellate or revisional Court can endeavour to see whether it could be rectified. (State of Punjab Vs Naib Din) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 58 (S.C.)
Question whether accused wants to produce evidence in defence – Cannot be put while recording statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – Such question when put and replied in negative is of no avail – Accused cannot be debarred from adducing evidence in defence on that score. (Pintu & Anr. Vs State of U.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 197 (Allahabad)
Scope – Underlying object is to enable the accused to explain any circumstances appearing against him in the evidence and this object is based on the maxim audi alteram partem which is one of the principles of natural justice – Compliance with the provision is mandatory – Each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against accused is required to be put to him specifically, distinctly and separately – Failure to do so amounts to serious irregularity, vitiating the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused – Questions to be put to the accused are to be framed with care and caution which should contain mainly the incriminating material against the accused. (Boraiah alias Pujari Boraiah Vs State ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 490 (Karnataka)
Statement of accused u/s 313 – Material evidence not put to the accused – Looking to the peculiar nature of the case, the entire trial stands vitiated. (Joginder Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 178 (P&H)
Statement under section 313 is not evidence – It is only stand or version of accused by way of explanation when incriminating materials appearing against him are bought to his notice – No suggestion to P.W. regarding non delivery of shares – Statement u/s 313 about non delivery is of no consequence. (Devender Kumar Singla Vs. Baldev Krishan Singla ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 508 (S.C.)
Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. – General denial as to suffering of injuries – This circumstance by itself does not conclusively prove his complicity, but this circumstance has to be considered alongwith other incriminating circumstances proved on the basis of evidence on record. (Gilbert Pereira Vs State of Karnataka) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 470 (S.C.)
Statement u/s 313 – Evidentiary value – Statement of an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can be looked into by the Court and would be a relevant evidence to be taken into consideration insofar as it lends support substantially to the case of the prosecution – However, such a statement cannot itself be made the ground for conviction of accused. (Tehal Singh Vs The State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 406 (P&H)
Wife – Death caused by throttling and smothering – Admissions of throttling and smothering by accused could not be discarded and ought to be taken into consideration for convicting accused. (State of Maharashtra Vs Shivaji Anandrao Chede) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 538 (Bombay)
Dowry death – Demand of dowry alleged against parents-in-law – No allegation against husband – Husband cannot be summoned as accused on the allegation that it was his duty to have protected his wife from harassment and ill-treatment and that he failed to discharge his important marital duty. (Lajpat Rai Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 416 (P&H)
Summoning of additional accused – Accused named in F.I.R. but not charge sheeted, could be summoned – The term ‘Evidence’ as used in S.319 Cr.P.C. does not mean ‘Evidence’ complete by cross-examination and court can take action under S.319 Cr.P.C. even on the statement made in examination-in-chief of one or more witnesses. (Ravina Vs State of U.P.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 839 (Allahabad)
Misappropriation of dowry articles and demand of Rs.12 lacs and car by husband, parents and two sisters – Only husband sent up for trial after investigation – On application of wife others summoned as accused – Order of Magistrate u/s 319 Cr.P.C. quashed as there were omnibus allegations by wife to rope in all the accused. (Dr.Sant Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 134 (P&H) – Recovery of contraband from a truck – Person who has already sold the truck cannot be added as accused. (Gian Parkash Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 380 (P&H)
‘Evidence’ – Used in S.319 Cr.P.C. does not mean evidence which is tested by cross examination. (Basant Kumar Vs State of U.P.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 108 (Allahabad)
A person can be summoned as an accused on the basis of evidence coming against him in examination-in-chief – Cross examination is not necessary for the purpose. (Baljinder Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 402 (P&H)
A person who is a witness in a case, can also be summoned as an accused if there is some basis in this regard in the evidence. (Lajpat Rai Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 416 (P&H)
Addition of a person as an additional accused – It is extra ordinary power which should be used sparingly only if compelling reasons exist. (Gian Parkash Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 380 (P&H)
Additional accused – Mere presence of person at spot not sufficient to connect him with the commission of crime – Statement of PW3 that additional accused did not abuse him – Reasons assigned not cogent on the basis of which cognizance could have been taken – Order of impleadment set aside. (Rameshwar Lal & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 454 (Rajasthan)
Additional accused – Power to summon – To be used sparingly and only if there is convincing evidence against the person sought to be added as an accused. (Manoj Kumar Vs Prabhu Ram) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 73 (P&H)
Additional accused – Summoned on basis of statement of complainant – Order quashed as there was no other evidence on record. (Isham Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana ) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 669 (P&H)
Additional accused – Summoning – Power vested in Court has to be used sparingly and primarily to advance the cause of criminal justice but not as a handle at the hands of the complainant to cause harassment to the persons who are not involved in the commission of crime. (Dr.Sant Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 134 (P&H)
Additional accused – Summoning of – A person cannot be summoned as an additional accused on the basis of doubt – Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected that person to be summoned has committed an offence and that for such offence he could be tried alongwith already arraigned accused – It is discretion of Court to summon a person as additional accused and such discretion should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. (Bharat Bhushan alias Sonu Vs State of Haryana & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 112 (P&H)
Additional accused – Summoning of – A person not challaned by Police can be summoned as accused under S.319 Cr.P.C. only after some of the prosecution evidence had been recorded and some material had come on record to justify summoning order. (Court of its own motion Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 438 (P&H)
Additional accused – Summoning of – Action can be taken even on the statement made in examination-in-chief of one or more witnesses. (Jagdish Vs State of U.P.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 306 (All.)
Additional accused – Summoning of – Court should use power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. sparingly and primarily to advance the cause of criminal justice but not as a handle at the hands of the complainant to cause harassment to the person who is not involved in the commission of the crime – The basic requirement for invoking this Section is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during the trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned – It is not enough that the Court entertained some doubt from the evidence about the involvement of another person in the offence. (Isham Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana ) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 669 (P&H)
Additional accused – Summoning of – FIR against seven persons – Challan submitted against five persons – Complaint case against two persons who were dropped by police – Persons facing trail in police case can also be summoned in complaint case – Version in two cases were different. (Jarnail Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 435 (P&H)
Additional accused – Summoning of – It is not enough that Court entertained some doubt from the evidence about the involvement of another person in the offence – Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects viz. that the other person has committed an offence and second that for such offence other person could as well be tried alongwith the already arraigned accused – A judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then. (Jarnail Kaur Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 789 (P&H)
Additional accused – Summoning of – On the basis of examination-in-chief of a witness – Additional accused can be summoned on the basis of statement made by a witness in examination-in-chief, if from the same it appears to the Court that the summoned accused are involved in the offence. (Sham Lal & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 656 (P&H)
Additional accused – Summoning of – Person named in FIR but not charge sheeted – He can be summoned as an accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C. – Expression ‘Any person not arraigned as an accused in that case’ would mean a person who has not been sent up for trial by the police irrespective of the fact whether he was nominated as an accused in FIR or not. (Jagdish Vs State of U.P.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 306 (All.)
Additional accused – Summoning of – Power vested in Court should be used sparingly and primarily to advance the cause of criminal justice but not as a handle at the instance of the complainant, to cause harassment to the persons who are actually not involved in the commission of crime. (Harjinder Kaur & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 445 (P&H)
Additional accused – Summoning of – Suicide by bride – Challan against husband – Application for summoning of parents and brother and his wife – Deceased and husband were living separately as evident from ration card – Held, they could not be unnecessarily dragged in criminal litigation. (Manoj Kumar Vs Prabhu Ram) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 73 (P&H)
Charge against one accused ‘P’ – Two accused impleaded and charge against ‘P’ modified by adding offence u/s 307/34 and 427/34 IPC – Case of hitting car with tractor with intention to kill – No evidence whether two impleaded accused were also on tractor – Proceedings against two impleaded accused quashed – Charge against ‘P’ u/s 34, 307 and 427 set aside. (Vinod Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 85 (Rajasthan)
Co-accused – Impleading of – Order impleading co-accused cannot be passed without recording evidence. (Nilkanth Vs State of Maharashtra) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 427 (Bombay)
Conclusion of trial – Even then additional accused can be tried – Such power has to be exercised cautiously and with an endeavour that no one should suffer unnecessarily – Court must apply its mind before invocation of extraordinary power and once such power has been exercised, normally the process and procedure should be allowed to be followed. (Amar Nath Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 371 (P&H)
Court can proceed u/s 319 Cr.P.C. against a person even if he is discharged. (Balwinder Kaur @ Baby Vs State of Punjab) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 346 (P&H)
Impleadment of a person as co-accused – Person named as an accused in FIR – Not charge-sheeted – Can be summoned and arraigned as accused under S.319 – Particularly when evidence of prosecution witness corroborates the role of these persons in the alleged incident. (Smt.Rukhsana Khatoon Vs Sakhawat Hussain) AIR 2002 S.C. 2342
Invoking provision of S.319 – Factors to be taken into consideration are: (i) The doubt about the involvement of the other accused has no place; (ii) Discretionary power so vested in Cr.P.C. under these provisions should be exercised to advance the cause of criminal justice; (iii) There is compelling duty on the Court to proceed against other accused; (iv) The power vested in this section is an extraordinary power which should be used very sparingly. (Lajpat Rai Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 416 (P&H)
Newly added accused – Proceedings against them have to commence afresh and the witnesses have to be reheard and the whole proceedings have to commence from the beginning of the trial i.e. witnesses have to be summoned once again, examine them and cross-examine them in order to reach the stage where it had already reached. (Meena Devi Vs Narender) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 164 (P&H)
Offence u/ss 498A, 406 IPC – Challan against husband, his mother, two brothers and their wives – Application to summon other family members – Allegations against them general in character and confined to demand of dowry – There is tendency to involve every member of family which is reflected in large number of cases – Application dismissed. (Meena Devi Vs Narender) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 164 (P&H)
Police report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. – Summoning of persons mentioned in column No.2 – Magistrate is required to record reasons and also to disclose the material or the evidence appearing against such person who has not been sent as accused for being tried together with the accused person. (Anand Sharma Vs State) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 9 (Delhi)
Power to summon an accused – Extraordinary power conferred on the court should be very sparingly used and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken. (Krishnappa Vs State of Karnataka) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 572 (S.C.)
Revisionist named in FIR but not charge sheeted – Informant named him in his examination in chief in Court during trial – Held, revisionist can be summoned by Court u/s 319 Cr.P.C. (Tulsi Vs State of U.P.) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 153 (Allahabad)
Summoning a person as an additional accused – (1) Sessions Judge can add a person as accused in absence of any committal order against him (2) Power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power which should be exercised very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist; (3) Fact that proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been quashed against some accused, will not prevent the Court for exercising its discretion u/s 319 Cr.P.C.; (4) A person cannot be summoned as accused at pre-trial or pre-enquiry stage i.e. before framing of charge; (5) De novo trial be held in respect of newly added person when trial has concluded. (Amar Nath Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 371 (P&H)
Summoning an additional accused – Doubt is not sufficient to summon an accused – Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected that other person has committed an offence and that other person can be tried along with the already arraigned accused. (Tejwant Kaur @ Tejwinder Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab ) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 354 (P&H)
Summoning of additional accused – It is an extraordinary power which is to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection – Court must have reasonable satisfaction that from the evidence already collected, some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person should be tried together with the accused already facing trial. (Khet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 236 (Rajasthan)
Simply on the strength of statement of co-accused recorded by investigating agency u/s 161 Cr.P.C. it cannot be said to be a material sufficient for proceeding against the petitioner. (Suresh Chhotalal Verma Vs State of Gujarat) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 172 (Guj.)
Offence u/ss 467, 468, 471, 420 & 120-B IPC – Police charge sheeted one out of three named in FIR – Magistrate took cognizance against charge-sheeted accused – Cognizance against other two accused on separate complaint – Police case and complaint case directed to be clubbed – S.319 Cr.P.C. has no application & cognizance against petitioners suffered no illegality. (Radha & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 222 (Rajasthan)
Charge framed against 15 on police report – Subsequent addition of 5 others – Trial Court satisfied on basis of oral and documentary evidence as to involvement of those 5 others and taking cognizance against them – Order of Magistrate well reasoned – If two views are possible at stage of taking cognizance, one favouring prosecution must be taken – No ground to interfere with the order. (Sanjeev Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 457 (Rajasthan)
‘Evidence’ – Means the statement in examination-in-chief for which an opportunity of cross-examination has been given to the accused and it is only such complete statement of a witness which constitutes evidence for the purpose of S.319 Cr.P.C. (Suresh Chhotalal Verma Vs State of Gujarat) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 172 (Guj.)
Impleadment of additional accused – Trial Court refused impleadment – Revisional Court without assigning reasons as to how interference in the discretionary jurisdiction of trial Court is warranted, set aside the order of trial Court – Order of revisional Court set aside. (Vipin Anand & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 412 (Rajasthan)
Additional accused – Summoning of – Petitioner summoned as additional accused on the statement of complainant in Court that petitioner acted as mediator and threatened to harass the deceased on account of less dowry given to accused – This is not sufficient evidence – Summoning order quashed. (Jarnail Kaur Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 789 (P&H)
Compromise – Acquittal of accused u/s 323 and 324 IPC but matter kept pending for offence u/s 326 – No use of proceeding with trial when complainant does not want to pursue the matter – Trial Court directed to permit parties to compound the offence and close the proceedings. (Banwari & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 707 (Rajasthan)
Compromise in non compoundable offence – Permission to compound offence punishable u/s 326 IPC rightly refused by High Court – However, sentence reduced to already undergone keeping in view that incident is 10 years old and appellant has undergone several months imprisonment – Fine enhanced to Rs.5,000/- out of which Rs.4,000/- is payable to each of the injured as compensation. (Bankat & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 931 (S.C.)
Conviction u/s 326/34 IPC – Both the parties related to each other and compromised the matter – Sentence reduced to already undergone (two months) – Though offence u/s 326 is non compoundable but the fact of compromise can be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence. (Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 210 (P&H)
Offence u/s 363/366 IPC – Girl left the house of her parents of her own and with her own consent she was married with the petitioner and she living happily with the petitioner – Occurrence took place when she was 17 years of age – Parties allowed to compound the offence – Modern trend of penology is reformatory – If the parties have settled their dispute amicably, Court should not come in their way – Rather the purpose of law is to eradicate the litigation between the parties. (Rakesh Kumar alias Sonu Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 379 (P&H)
Compromise – Keeping the interest of the girl in view who is stated to have already been engaged to be married to some other person, it would be in the interest of justice to put an end to the criminal proceedings. (Sharan Deep Singh Vs State) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 145 (P&H)
Compounding of offence – Offence u/s 406 and 498-A IPC – Parties settled their dispute amicably – Offence not compoundable but parties allowed to compound in their own interest and in larger interest of society – FIR quashed. (Kamlesh Rana Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 598 (P&H)
Compounding of Offence – Offence u/ss 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC – Parties amicably settled the dispute and compromised the matter – Offence not compoundable – However, High Court in exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the proceedings. (Inderjit Singh Uppal Vs State of U.T., Chandigarh & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 830 (P&H)
Conviction u/s 307 and 498-A IPC – At appeal stage parties compromised – Sentence reduced to already undergone to avoid flaring up old enmity between the parties. (Kurey Ram & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 41 (P&H)
FIR u/s 406/498-A/323/34 IPC – Marriage dissolved by mutual consent – Wife having no objection if FIR is quashed – FIR quashed. (Ram Parkash Gupta & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 582 (P&H)
FIR u/s 498-A and 406 IPC – Husband and wife settled dispute and sought divorce by mutual consent – FIR quashed as it is in the interest of justice and in the interest of parties. (Meena Kumari Vs State of Haryana & Anr.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 335 (P&H)
Conviction u/s 307 IPC – Parties compromised – Parties belonging to the same village in nearby houses and having adjacent lands – Litigation going in for 10 years – Sentence reduced to already undergone (4 months). (Jai Pal Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 144 (P&H)
Rape – Offence is not compoundable. (Sanjay Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 528 (P&H)
Offence u/s 498-A IPC – Not compoundable – Cannot be compounded at all even with the permission of the Court. (Mrs.Anita Vs State of Punjab) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 609 (P&H)
Office u/s 498-A – Compounding – Settlement between spouses to amicably live together – Offence u/s 498-A though not compoundable but parties allowed to compound in view of object of matrimonial law to facilitate a happy and harmonious matrimonial life between spouses. (Rameshwar alias Pappu Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 247 (Raj.)
Offence u/s 498-A IPC – Husband and wife started living together and performing conjugal rights – A pragmatic approach should be adopted irrespective of the fact that offence is not compoundable – Complaint quashed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Ram Swaroop Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 600 Rajasthan)
Compounding of offence – Offence u/ss 324 & 326 – Parties blood relations – Dispute mutually settled after the occurrence – Court satisfied that the respondents have effected compromise with the petitioners with their free will and not under coercion – Proceedings quashed. (Harbhajan Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 244 (P&H)
Conviction in non compoundable offence – Compounding of offence allowed as parties are co-villagers and residing peacefully, main accused died, accused did not indulge in any other criminal activity – Sentence set aside and accused acquitted of the charge – Fine already deposited shall be treated as costs of litigation. (Kashmir Singh Vs The State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 459 (P&H)
Offence u/s 363/366 IPC – Parties settled their dispute amicably – Held, when parties have settled their dispute amicably Court should not come in their way – Purpose of law is to eradicate the litigation between the parties – Modern trend of penology is reformatory – Parties allowed to compound the offence. (Rakesh Kumar alias Sonu Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 379 (P&H)
Criminal and civil litigation between husband and wife – Parties entering into compromise and getting divorce by mutual consent – Wife not withdrawing FIR u/ss 498-A and 506 IPC – FIR quashed. (Ruchi Agarwal Vs Amit Kumar Agrawal) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 611 (S.C.)
Offence u/s 406 IPC – Husband and wife compromised the dispute – High Court can quash criminal proceedings or FIR – S.320 Cr.P.C. does not limit the power of High Court under Section 482 of he Code. (Ramesh Kumar Vs State) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 521 (Delhi)
FIR u/s 498-A IPC – Parties entering into compromise and getting divorce by mutual consent – FIR quashed – Proceedings are bound to fail as none of the prosecution witnesses will support the case of the prosecution. (Ravinder Sood & Ors. Vs Union Territory, Chandigarh) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 209 (P&H)
Offence u/s 498-A IPC – Parties entering into compromise – Decree of divorce passed – Matter 16 years old – FIR quashed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Suresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 131 (P&H)
High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can allow the compounding of the offence, even in non-compoundable offences, if it is in the interest of parties and in the larger interest of the society. (Harbhajan Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 244 (P&H)
Electricity – Theft – FIR lodged – Board circular that after payment of compensation “FIR will be withdrawn” – Deposit of compensation gives no right to accused to seek quashing of FIR. (Om Parkash Babbar Vs Haryana State Electricity Board) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 314 (P&H)
Non compoundable offence – High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash proceedings or FIR or complaint and S.320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (B.S.Joshi & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 621 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 161 (S.C.)
Non compoundable offence – High Court can quash proceedings in exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as S.320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Inderjit Singh Uppal Vs State of U.T., Chandigarh & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 830 (P&H)
Offence u/s 498-A IPC – Not compoundable – However in the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure ends of justice, proceedings quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of Court. (Chiman Singh & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 455 (Rajasthan)
Prosecution – Withdrawal by public prosecutor – Can be at any time before pronouncement of judgment with consent of Court – If Court comes to the conclusion that application is moved by public prosecutor in a bona fide manner then it is discretion of Court to permit withdrawal. (Ram Chander, DSP (Retd.) Vs The State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 194 (P&H)
Withdrawal from prosecution – Accused availing loan from government on a false affidavit that the patient was his wife – Amount taken as advance returned to State Government and nothing more to be recovered from the accused – Order declining withdrawal set aside. (Gupta Kumar Sundas Vs State of Sikkim) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 351 (Sikkim)
Withdrawal from prosecution – Paramount consideration should be the interest of administration of justice. (Gupta Kumar Sundas Vs State of Sikkim) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 351 (Sikkim)
Withdrawal of prosecution – Can be allowed only in the interest of justice – Court must consider all relevant circumstances and find out whether the withdrawal of prosecution would advance the cause of justice – If the case is likely to end in an acquittal and continuance of case is only causing severe harassment to the accused, Court may permit withdrawal of the prosecution – If the withdrawal of prosecution is likely to bury the dispute and bring about harmony between the parties and it would be in the best interest of justice, Court may allow the withdrawal of prosecution – Withdrawal of prosecution shall be permitted only when valid reasons are made out for the same. (Rahul Agarwal Vs Rakesh Jain & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 218 (S.C.)
Withdrawal of prosecution – Dismissal of application on ground that earlier similar application rejected and that second application is not maintainable without getting earlier order reversed – Rejection of first application for non disclosure of reasons does not bar filing of second application disclosing reasons for withdrawal from prosecution – It is duty of Court to examine whether application is made in good faith and in interest of public policy and justice. (D.P.Mehta & Anr. Vs State of Karnataka) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 81 (Karnataka)
Withdrawal of prosecution under TADA Act whereas accused to face trial for offence under IPC – It cannot be said that application is filed with malafide intention – Application allowed. (Ayyub etc. Vs State of U.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 485 (S.C.)
Summary trial – Magistrate is not entitled to consider the evidence recorded in a summary trial by his predecessor – Evidence recorded by predecessor in a summary trial cannot be made the basis for conviction – Magistrate is required to consider only that evidence which is recorded by him and not by his predecessor. (State Vs Dev Raj) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 05 (P&H)
Insane accused – Trial postponed against him – Held, trial can proceed against prudent accused. (Bhanumati Devi Vs State of Tripura) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 517 (Gauhati)
Person of unsound mind – Trial of – Court if satisfied after considering medical and other evidence that accused is of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence, it shall record a finding to that effect and shall postpone further proceedings in the case – The trial of the fact of unsoundness of mind and incapacity of the accused shall be deemed to be part of his trial before the Court. (Gordhan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 495 (Rajasthan)
Person of unsoundness of mind – Acquittal – Modality of procedure to be followed in such cases – Enumerated. (Motiram Maroti Dhule Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 492 (Bombay)
Document forged outside Court and then produced – Court before whom such forged document is produced can initiate the proceedings against the offender and holding of a preliminary inquiry is not necessary. (Rajinder Parkash Vs Mal Singh) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 294 (P&H)
False evidence given in Court – Complaint for perjury – To be lodged only in those cases where it appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely – There must be a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and the Court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge. (Badan Singh & Anr. Vs R.K.Sondhi & Anr.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 283 (P&H)
False evidence given in Court – Court concerned has to record a finding that lodging of complaint is expedient in the interest of justice. (Badan Singh & Anr. Vs R.K.Sondhi & Anr.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 283 (P&H)
Enquiry – Whether necessary? – It is discretion of Court which is to be exercised in the given facts and circumstances of each case. (Golak Chandra Bhol Vs Bhaskar Baral) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 313 (Orissa)
Enquiry – Witnesses can be examined – However, detailed enquiry is not necessary – Court is not to decide the innocence or guilt of a person as the primary object is to ascertain whether there is prima facie case for trial of an offence. (Golak Chandra Bhol Vs Bhaskar Baral) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 313 (Orissa)
Forged documents – Court at the stage envisaged in Section 340 of the Code is not deciding the guilt or innocence of the party against whom proceedings are to be taken before the magistrate – At that stage Court only considers whether it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence affecting administration of justice. (Pritish Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 174 (S.C.)
Forged documents – For purpose of filing criminal complaint by Court it is not necessary to hold preliminary enquiry if Court can form an opinion that offence was committed by accused – Even when the Court forms such an opinion it is not mandatory that the Court should make a complaint. (Pritish Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 174 (S.C.)
Mere production of a document which has not been proved as a forged one cannot be the basis for ordering prosecution under the provision – It is discretion of Court to initiate proceedings. (Damodaran Vs Bharathan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 15 (Kerala)
Notice or preliminary enquiry – Provision does not require – However, principles of natural justice require reasonable opportunity by issuing show cause notice to be given before coming to final conclusion for prosecution in terms of S.340(1) Cr.P.C. (Madhukar Vishwanath Sonawane Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 238 (Bombay)
Order u/s 340 Cr.P.C. – No revision lies against such an order. (Golak Chandra Bhol Vs Bhaskar Baral) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 313 (Orissa)
Preliminary enquiry u/s 340 Cr.P.C. – Accused has no right to participate and adduce evidence in defence. (Devinder Mohan Zakhmi Vs The Amritsar Improvement Trust) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 332 (P&H)
“Court” – Means the Court which initiates the proceeding under this Section and the offence must have been committed in a proceeding in that Court or in relation to such proceeding. (Golak Chandra Bhol Vs Bhaskar Baral) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 313 (Orissa)
Perjury – Court cannot directly order prosecution – Court after holding preliminary inquiry if comes to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case and there is reasonable probability of conviction, should make a complaint in writing and forward to the first class Magistrate having jurisdiction. (Ram Kishore Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 195 (Rajasthan)
Fabrication of document in proceedings before Civil Court – Section 340 Cr.P.C. is applicable irrespective of fact whether proceedings are of Civil or of Criminal nature – S.340 Cr.P.C. is applicable even to the Revenue Courts. (K.Rajagopala Rao Vs P.Radhakrishna Murthy) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 318 (A.P)
Forgery of document – Court is competent to make an enquiry and lodge a complaint irrespective of the fact whether such document was forged before it was produced in Court or it was forged while it was in custody of Court. (Rakesh Goel Vs Maneesh Goel) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 186 (P&H)
Forged documents – Court filing complaint before Magistrate – Accused has a right of appeal u/s 341 Cr.P.C. (Pritish Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 174 (S.C.)
Forged documents – Filing complaint – Opportunity of hearing – There is no statutory requirement to afford an opportunity of hearing to the persons against whom that court might file a complaint before the magistrate for initiating prosecution proceedings. (Pritish Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 174 (S.C.)
Forgery of a document – Rejection of application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. – Appeal lies against such an order. (Rakesh Goel Vs Maneesh Goel) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 186 (P&H)
Complaint u/s 340 Cr.P.C. – Magistrate shall proceed to deal with the case as if it were instituted on Police report and shall proceed under Sections 238 to 243 Cr.P.C. (Pritish Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 174 (S.C.)
Provision deals with five classes of contempt viz. (i) intentional omission to produce a document by a person legally bound to do so; (ii) refusal to take oath when duly required to take one; (iii) refusal to answer questions by one legally bound to state the truth; (iv) refusal to sign a statement made to a public servant when legally required to do so; and (v) intentional insult or interruption to a public servant at any stage of a judicial proceeding. (Bar Council of India Vs High Court of Kerala) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 225 (S.C.)
Murder – Compensation – Appellant convicted for having caused the death of a person playing drum in band party in Marriage – Appellant was 45 of age at the relevant time – He offered to pay rupees 3.5 lakhs as compensation to the aged parents of victim – Sentence of two years imprisonment awarded – Rs. 3.5 lakhs deposited by appellant to be paid to the parents of deceased. (Nehru Jain Vs State of NCT Delhi) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 731 (Delhi)
Conviction u/s 304 Part II for causing death and accused sentenced to 7 years R.I. – Accused also to pay fine of Rs.1.50 lacs which shall be given as compensation to heirs of deceased. (Sita Ram & Ors. Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 517 (P&H)
Custodial death – Compensation – Accused acquitted – State Govt. directed to pay compensation of Rs.One lac to mother and children of deceased – Direct evidence of custodial death is rarely available – Brotherhood ties make police personnel to remain silent and more often than not even pervert the truth to save their colleagues. (Smt.Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan Vs Vasant Raghunath Dhoble & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 837 (S.C.)
Reduction in sentence – Cashier Co-operative Society embezzled Rs.18,294/- and convicted under section 409 IPC – Period of trial, appeal and revision stretched to 24 years – Sentence reduced from 3 years to already undergone (2 months) – Accused directed to deposit a sum of Rs.90,000/- over and above the fine already imposed to be paid to Society by way of compensation. (Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 221 (P&H)
Conviction u/s 326 IPC – Rs.20,000/- imposed as fine – Amount of fine enhanced to Rs.one lac while sentence reduced to already undergone – If accused deposits fine the entire amount will go to injured – In case of non payment of fine within three months then appeal shall stand dismissed. (Surjeet Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 277 (P&H)
Sentence & fine of Rs.1,50,000/- – Appeal against – Appellate Court suspended fine on furnishing bank guarantee – Held, order for furnishing bank guarantee is not valid and the same set aside. (Urvi Dutta Nautiyal Vs State of Uttaranchal) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 681 (Uttaranchal)
Compensation to victim – When Court imposes a sentence of which fine does not form a part, the Court may when passing the judgment, order the accused persons to pay by way of compensation to the person who has suffered any loss or injury. (Gurbinder Singh @ Bhola Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 09 (P&H)
Death by rash and negligent driving – Accused sentenced to 9 months RI and fine of Rs.250/- – Incident 14 years old – Sentence reduced to already undergone – Sentence of fine set aside – Accused directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- to legal heirs of victim. (Gurbinder Singh @ Bhola Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 09 (P&H)
Power u/s 360 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked from the date Probation of Offenders Act was made applicable to Delhi. (State Through S.P., New Delhi Vs Ratan Lal Arora) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 797 (S.C.)
Accused first offender – Court should give benefit of S.360 Cr.P.C. to accused – However, if Court decides not to exercise jurisdiction u/s 360 Cr.P.C. then it must record reasons as to why the benefit of S.360 Cr.P.C. is denied. (Banwari Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 401 (P&H)
Dismissal for default – Restoration – Criminal Court is debarred from altering or reviewing its judgment or final order only when it is disposed of on merits and not when it is dismissed in default – Restoration petition if shows sufficient cause, petition can be restored. (Geeta Kumari & Anr. Vs State of H.P. & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 105 (H.P.)
Condemned cell – Death sentence – Unless death sentence is confirmed by High Court convict cannot be sent to condemned cell – Convict is entitled to similar privileges which are granted to other prisoners. (Pradeepan Vs State of Kerala) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 54 (Kerala)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Enhancement of Sentence – High Court converting life imprisonment into death sentence – No appeal by State to enhance sentence – Order of High Court enhancing sentence set aside. (Sardar Khan Vs State of Karnataka ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 676 (S.C.)
Acquittal – Appeal against – There is no embargo on appellate Court reviewing evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based – Appellate Court to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so – If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process – It is a compelling reason for interference. (Chanakya Dhibar (Dead) Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 743 (S.C.)
Acquittal – Appeal against – There is no justification for interference in appeals against acquittal when the findings recorded by High Court are reasonable and possible on basis of evidence on record. (Moijullah @ Puttam etc. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 819 (S.C.)
Conviction – Appeal against – Right of appeal is a statutory right – Deprivation of statutory right of appeal amounts to denial of procedure established by law – Judgment of first appellate court shows that there was non application of mind in regard to factual aspects of the case as Court merely proceeded to consider quantum of sentence – Appellant was denied an opportunity of agitating their case on facts – Impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. (K.Pandurangan etc. Vs S.S.R.Velusamy & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 727 (S.C.)
Non appealing accused – Conviction of appealing accused unsustainable – Case of non appealing accused on same footing – Benefit of decision must be extended to non appealing accused inspite of fact that he had not challenged conviction which had attained finality. (Pawan Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 126 (S.C.)
Murder and dacoity – Conviction by trial Court and acquittal by High Court – Evidence of independent eye witness cannot be discarded merely because two other witnesses who were closely related to deceased turned hostile – Appellate Court to interfere only when there are compelling reasons and judgment is clearly unreasonable – If two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. (State of U.P. Vs Babu & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 686 (S.C.)
Prosecution for house trespass, robbery and causing grievous hurt – Charge of robbery not proved but lesser offences of house trespass and causing hurt proved – Conviction for said offences based on oral evidence of witnesses and medical evidence, cannot be held bad in law – No interference with order of conviction. (Deepak Kumar Vs State of Karnataka) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 287 (Karnataka)
Appeal against conviction – High Court observed that trial Court had gone into all details of oral and documentary evidence and the conclusions drawn on the basis thereof are correct and that High Court need not to discuss oral and documentary evidence on record, which may only result in repetition – Held, approach of High Court is perverse. (Vijayendra Kumar Vs State of Bihar & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 876 (S.C.)
Appeal against conviction – Must be considered by appellate Court both on questions of law and questions of fact – High Court has the power to dismiss a criminal appeal summarily – However that power must be exercised only in a case where there is no arguable question of fact or law. (Vijayendra Kumar Vs State of Bihar & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 876 (S.C.)
Conviction – Appeal against – Suspension of sentence – Termination of service of an employee – Order of conviction stayed during the pendency and disposal of appeal. (Pralhad Sitaram Yeole Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 388 (Bombay)
Conviction – Appeal against – During pendency of appeal temporary release on bail on ground of mother’s illness – Accused failing to surrender and absconding – His appeal is liable to be dismissed. (Vijay Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 311 (Bombay)
Appeal by State against reduction by sentence by High Court to that already undergone – In such an appeal accused can argue for an acquittal. (State of Rajasthan Vs Kishanlal) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 556 (S.C.)
Rape – Minimum sentence of 7 years – Reduced by High Court without assigning any adequate or special reasons – Appeal against sentence to Supreme Court – Held, it is an appeal for enhancement of sentence. (State of Rajasthan Vs Kishanlal) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 556 (S.C.)
Appeal by State seeking enhancement of sentence – Accused can plead for his acquittal in the said appeal. (State of Maharashtra Vs Abdul Majid Abdul Raheman Sayyed) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 350 (Bom.)
Accused pleaded guilty – Conviction and sentence – Is one on trial – Appeal therefore is maintainable. (Excise Inspector Vs Sasi) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 117 (Kerala)
Appeal against acquittal – Two dying declarations giving two different versions – Court must be satisfied about truthfulness of dying declaration to convict the accused. (State of Punjab Vs Parveen Kumar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 325 (S.C.)
Appeal against Acquittal – Appellate court – Scope and Ambit – No embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence – High Court is duty bound to go into greater details of the evidence to see whether miscarriage has resulted from acquittal – Generally order of acquittal should not be interfered – Where two views are possible the view favourable to accused to be adopted – However where admissible evidence is ignored – Appellate can re-appreciate evidence to ascertain as to whether accused committed any offence or not – Order of acquittal unreasoned – Conviction by High court upheld. (Main Pal & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors. ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 746 (S.C.)
Murder and dacoity – Conviction by trial Court and acquittal by High Court – Evidence of independent eye witness cannot be discarded merely because two other witnesses who were closely related to deceased turned hostile – Appellate Court to interfere only when there are compelling reasons and judgment is clearly unreasonable – If two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. (State of U.P. Vs Babu & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 290 (S.C.)
Conviction u/s 294 & 332 IPC – Appeal against – Dismissed as time barred – Record not showing that scrutiny was carried out & counsel for appellant was informed about delay at the time of filing of appeal – It would be appropriate that applicant is allowed to move application for condonation of delay – Impugned order set aside. (Anil Bansal Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 479 (Chhattisgarh)
Appeal against acquittal – Accused a member of Higher Judicial Service demanded Rs.3 lacs on promise to acquit accused – Money paid to wife of accused at his house – Rs.3 lacs recovered from the house of accused – Constable through whom money demanded turned approver – Accused convicted by trial Court but High Court acquitted the accused – Accused could not be acquitted on ground of minor contradictions in statement of witnesses – Order of acquittal set aside. (State of A.P. Vs S.Janardhana Rao) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 590 (S.C.)
Minor discrepancies – When witnesses support prosecution case on all material particulars, accused cannot be acquitted on ground of minor contradictions in statement of witnesses. (State of A.P. Vs S.Janardhana Rao) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 590 (S.C.)
Acquittal – Appeal against – Appellate Court not to interfere when two reasonable views are possible and the view taken by Court below is one of such possible views. (Shri Gopal & Anr. Vs Subhash & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 37 (S.C.)
Acquittal – Appeal against – Court will not interfere in order of acquittal unless for compelling reasons and only in those cases where judgment is perverse and based on irrelevant materials. (State Vs Unni) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 88 (Karnataka)
Acquittal – Appeal against – High Court cannot set aside order of acquittal because another view is possible on material on record – High Court should consider reasons given by trial Court in the order of acquittal and should come to definite conclusion that finding of trial Court was perverse. (C.Antony Vs K.G.Raghavan Nair) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 90 (S.C.) : 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 1 (S.C.)
Acquittal – Appeal against – In a case where two views are possible, one of acquittal and the other of conviction, the higher court should not interfere with the order of acquittal. (State of Rajasthan etc. Vs Bhanwar Singh & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 15 (S.C.)
Acquittal – Appeal against – Interference in appeal only when judgment under appeal is palpably perverse or based on a misreading of evidence and where two views are possible, the one taken by trial Court in making a judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed. (Gurmit Kaur Vs Joginder Singh & Ors.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 146 (P&H)
Acquittal – Appeal against – Order of acquittal can be reversed only if it suffers from illegality or manifest error – Order cannot be reversed merely because a different view can be taken. (Income Tax Officer, Special Circle-III, Jalandhar Vs M/s.Jagdish Ram Manak Chand Jain & Ors.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 104 (P&H)
Acquittal – Appeal against – Powers to be exercised by High Court – Power to review evidence – High Court should be slow in disturbing finding of fact arrived at by trial Court – If two views are possible on evidence adduced in the case view favourable to accused should be adopted – Paramount consideration of Court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice – Merely because accused is acquitted by trial Court, cannot be made a basis to hold that High Court under all circumstances should not disturb such a finding – Where view taken by trial Court was uncalled for, not based upon facts of the case or legal evidence tendered in the case and was result of conjectures, imagination and hypothesis – High Court held justified in re-examining whole evidence and convicting accused. (Allarakha K.Mansuri Vs State of Gujarat) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 168 (S.C.)
Acquittal – Appeal against – Reversal of acquittal without focusing on reasoning given by lower Court and on misreading of relevant evidence – Not proper. (Punjabrao Vs State of Maharashtra) AIR 2002 S.C. 486
Acquittal – Appeal against – Scope for interference with the judgment of acquittal is limited – However, where the evidence has not been properly analysed by the Trial Court and the conclusions drawn are based on surmises and conjectures, it is not only permissible but also desirable that the appellate court should interfere with the order of acquittal – The only criterion is that if the view taken by the Trial Court is reasonable and possible view interference should not be made. (N.Somashekar (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs State of Karnataka) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 265 (S.C.)
Acquittal – Appeal against – There is no embargo on appellate Court reviewing evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based – However, if two views are possible on evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to guilt of accused and other to his innocence, view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted – Appellate Court to interfere when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. (State of Rajasthan Vs Rajaram) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 398 (S.C.)
Acquittal – Appeal against – There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based – The golden principle is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to he accused should be adopted – In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence even where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. (State of Punjab Vs Pohla Singh & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 330 (S.C.)
Acquittal – Appeal against – Two views possible on basis of evidence – View of acquittal a possible reasonable view – High Court not to interfere with order of acquittal. (Shingara Singh Vs State of Haryana & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 68 (S.C.)
Acquittal – Leave to appeal – Refused without giving reasons – Order set aside – Reasons introduce clarity of an order – Reasons must be given, may be brief, indicating application of mind. (State of Orissa Vs Dhaniram Luhar) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 711 (S.C.)
Appeal against acquittal – Appellate Court is entitled to reappreciate evidence but not to interfere with order of acquittal unless the view of Court acquitting the accused is unreasonable or perverse – If view recorded by Court acquitting the accused is possible, reasonable view of the evidence on record, the order of acquittal ought not to be reversed. (State of Punjab Vs Ajaib Singh & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 241 (S.C.)
Appeal against acquittal – If the view taken by the trial court while acquitting the accused is a possible, reasonable view of the evidence on record, High Court ought not to interfere with order of acquittal merely because it is possible to take contrary view. (Ram Swaroop & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 359 (S.C.)
Appeal against acquittal – Admissible evidence when ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. (Shashidhar Purandhar Hegde & Anr. Vs State of Karnataka) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 716 (S.C.)
Appeal against acquittal – Appellate Court should interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so – If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. (Sachchey Lal Tiwari Vs State of Uttar Pradesh) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 321 (S.C.)
Appeal against acquittal – Appellate Court to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so – If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. (State of U.P. Vs Satish) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 305 (S.C.)
Appeal against acquittal – Appellate Court to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so in order to prevent miscarriage of justice resulting therefrom – If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Sanjay Rai) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 733 (S.C.)
Appeal against Acquittal – Duty of Appellate court – Appellate court is duty bound to prevent miscarriage of Justice – Miscarriage of justice on account of acquittal is no less than from the conviction of an innocent person – Order of acquittal unreasoned – Conviction by High court upheld. (Main Pal & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors. ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 746 (S.C.)
Appeal against acquittal – High Court has full power to interfere with the finding of the trial Court but the High Court should be very slow in reversing the decision of the trial Court because the trial Court has the occasion to watch the demeanour of the witnesses very closely – However, High Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence and come to a conclusion independently but the conclusion which is arrived at by the High Court should be rational and proper appreciation of the testimony of the witnesses. (State of Karnataka Vs Papanaika & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 629 (S.C.)
Appeal against acquittal – High Court in its order held that having regard to evidence on record, no case for interference is made out and declined leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal – High Court should have considered on merit the appeal against acquittal – Impugned order set aside and matter remitted to High Court to grant leave and to dispose of appeal on merits. (Badri Lal Vs Chandan Singh & Ors.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 172 (S.C.)
Appeal against acquittal – High Court not to mechanically refuse to grant leave by mere cryptic observations without giving any reasons. (State of Rajasthan Vs Sohan Lal & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 756 (S.C.)
Appeal against acquittal – If Appellate Court comes to conclusion that findings of Courts below are wholly unreasonable or perverse and not based on evidence on record, or suffers from serious illegality including ignorance or misreading of evidence on record, Appellate Court is justified in setting aside such an order of acquittal. (State of Karnataka Vs K.Gopalakrishna) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 200 (S.C.)
Appeal against acquittal – If on the basis of same evidence, two views are possible, Appellate Court is not justified in reversing an order of acquittal if the same is based on evidence on record and the view taken is a possible reasonable view of the evidence. (State of U.P. Vs Shri Krishan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 144 (S.C.)
Appeal against acquittal – If on the same evidence two views are reasonably possible & Court takes a view in favour of accused, Appellate Court will not set aside the order of acquittal unless it finds the findings to be perverse, highly unreasonable, based on no evidence on record or made in ignorance of relevant evidence on record or for other such reasons. (Ayodhya Singh Vs State of Bihar & Ors.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 22 (S.C.)
Appeal against acquittal – If there is perverse appreciation of evidence and serious miscarriage of justice, the acquittal of the accused is to be reversed. (State of A.P. Vs K.Punardana Rao) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 430 (S.C.)
Appeal against acquittal – If two views on the same evidence are possible and the trial Court takes the view in favour of the accused, the appellate Court, in an appeal against acquittal, is not justified in reversing the order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the view taken by trial Court is wholly unreasonable or perverse and it is not possible to take the view in favour of the accused on the basis of evidence on record. (Hem Raj & Anr. Vs State of Punjab ) 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 138 (S.C.)
Appeal against acquittal – Supreme Court would be slow in reversing the finding entered by High Court unless there is perverse and erroneous appreciation of evidence. (Vijaybhai Bhanabhai Patel Vs Navnitbhai Nathubhai Patel & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 598 (S.C.)
Murder – Appeal against acquittal – Pendency of appeal for 18 years – Accused responsible for pendency – Passage of time cannot be the sole ground for upholding acquittal order. (State of Maharashtra Vs Shivaji Anandrao Chede) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 538 (Bombay)
Condonation of delay – Leave to appeal – Delay of 57 days – Sufficient cause – Should be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day’s delay – Order of High Court refusing to condone delay by holding that merely because AAG did not file appeal inspite of instructions did not constitute sufficient cause set aside – Delay of 57 days condoned. (State of Nagaland Vs Lipok AO & Ors.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 486 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 422 (S.C.)
Acquittal – Appeal against – There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based – Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of accused is further strengthened by acquittal – If two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. (Suchand Pal Vs Phani Pal & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 292 (S.C.)
Leave to appeal – Refused by High Court and the order read “No merit, Dismissed” – It is imperative for the High Court to indicate reasons as to why the prayer for grant of leave was found untenable – High Court ought to appreciate evidence as first Court of appeal and return its findings objectively. (State of Punjab Vs Bhag Singh) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 252 (S.C.)
Appeal against acquittal – Leave to appeal – Hearing of accused before granting leave – Once Court decides to hear accused before granting leave to appeal then it is not open to Court to grant leave to appeal ex parte without hearing the accused. (J.J.Merchant Vs S.N.Chaturvedi) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 552 (S.C.)
Deceased young girl of 20 made to snuff out her life on account of coercing demand of dowry by husband and his illicit relationship with another woman – Amounts to cruelty – Accused acquitted – State’s appeal against acquittal – Delay of 16 years in hearing of appeal – Held, mere delay in hearing of appeal need not benefit accused when guilt of accused is squarely established beyond all reasonable doubt – Accused convicted and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. (State of Maharashtra Vs Ganpat Dinkar Shinde & Anr.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 367 (Bom.)
Appeal against acquittal – First Appellate Court can sit as a court of appeal on facts also and can re-appreciate evidence but when reappreciating evidence appellate court should first analyse the findings of trial Court and then for valid reasons to be record should reverse such finding of trial Court – Appellate Court should not substitute the finding of trial court merely because another view is possible to be taken on the same set of facts. (Devatha Venkataswamy @ Rangaiah Vs Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 22 (S.C.)
Acquittal – Appeal against – Appreciation of evidence – Power of High Court – Power of High Court is extensive but it should give proper weight and consideration to views of trial Court which regard to credibility of witnesses, presumption of innocence, right of accused to benefit of doubt and justification of finding of facts – If on scrutiny of evidence, it is found that order of trial Court acquitting accused basing on non consideration of material evidence and its order is extremely perverse and not reasonably sustainable, appellate Court can interfere and set aside order of acquittal and convict the accused. (State of Orissa Vs Bharat Jena) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 294 (Orissa)
Acquittal in a case originally instituted on complaint – Appeal against – Merely because complaint was committed to Court of Session and conducted by Public Prosecutor, it would not cease to be complaint case – Court can treat revision filed by complainant assailing order of acquittal as an appeal under S.378(4) Cr.P.C. (Sangappa V.Tenginakai Vs State) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 279 (Bombay)
Complaint – Dismissal in default – Accused discharged – Appeal and not revision is maintainable. (Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs Mangat Rai) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 609 (P&H) : 2003(1) Civil Court Cases 156 (P&H)
Conviction by High Court – Judgment is appealable – No special leave to appeal required. (Shingara Singh Vs State of Haryana & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 68 (S.C.)
Conviction – Appeal against – Dismissal in absence of counsel for appellant – Held, criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for want of prosecution simplicitor without examining the merits thereof. (Raghubhai Surabhai Bharwad Vs Satishkumar Ranchhoddas Patel & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 264 (Gujarat)
Appeal against conviction – Cannot be dismissed in default – Order of conviction cannot be maintained without giving a clear cut finding regarding guilt of the accused and that finding has to be based on appraisal of records. (Ashok Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 246 (All.)
Conviction – Appeal against – Appellate Court cannot confirm the conviction and at the same time remit back the case to trial Court for consideration regarding the sentence alone. (P.Mazher Vs State of A.P. rep by Public Prosecutor) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 491 (A.P.)
Conviction – Appeal against – Options available to Appellate Court are: (1) Reverse the finding and sentence and acquit the accused of the offence of which he was charged; (2) Order retrial of the accused by a court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial; (3) To alter the finding and maintain the sentence imposed by the trial court; (4) Appellate Court has also got the option with or without altering the finding, alter the nature and extent of the sentence – However, Appellate Court has no power to enhance the sentence given by the trial court. (P.Mazher Vs State of A.P. rep by Public Prosecutor) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 491 (A.P.)
Main charge – Failure to prove – Acquittal is not automatic – Court has duty to examine whether charge of lesser offence can be made out on basis of evidence brought on record in course of trial for main offence – If so, accused to be convicted for such lesser offence – Where trial Court overlooked to do so, Appellate Court can convict accused for such lesser offence – Where charge of rape is not proved against accused he can be convicted for lesser offence of indecent assault on woman. (State by CPI, Gadag Rural Police Station Vs Shivaputrappa) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 652 (Karnataka)
Prosecution for house trespass, robbery and causing grievous hurt – Conviction for lesser offence after acquittal from charge of higher offence – Appellate Court cannot convict accused for higher offence of which he has been acquitted by trial Court, in absence of appeal by State against such acquittal – Appellate Court can also not enhance sentence in absence of State’s appeal for enhancement of sentence. (Deepak Kumar Vs State of Karnataka) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 287 (Karnataka)
Acquittal by High Court, as records of trial court were not placed before it – Records destroyed – Appellate court should direct retrial if after efforts reconstruction is not possible – However in case if reconstruction of record is possible, appeal should be disposed of on merits – Accused can be acquitted only in circumstances where retrial and fresh adjudication is impossible due to loss of vitally important basic record. (State of U.P. Vs Abhai Raj Singh ) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 151 (S.C.)
Murder – Conviction – Appeal – Suspension of sentence – Granted on the ground that accused had been granted parole on three occasions and there was no allegation of any misuse of liberty during the period of parole without considering relevant factors for suspension of sentence – Order directing suspension of sentence and granting bail is unsustainable. (State of Haryana Vs Hasmat) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 661 (S.C.)
Murder – Conviction – Appeal – Suspension of sentence – In cases involving conviction u/s 302 IPC, it is only in exceptional cases that benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted. (State of Haryana Vs Hasmat) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 661 (S.C.)
Murder – Conviction – Appeal – Suspension of sentence – Relevant factors for consideration are: nature of accusation against accused, manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail. (State of Haryana Vs Hasmat) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 661 (S.C.)
Murder – Sentence of life imprisonment – Appeal – High Court suspended execution of sentence on ground that accused during trial were on bail and they did not misuse the liberties – Effect of bail granted during trial loses its significance when on completion of trial accused is found guilty – It is only in exceptional cases that benefit of suspension of sentence is granted – In a case involving murder Court should consider the relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after they have been convicted for committing the serious offence of murder. (Kishori Lal Vs Rupa) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 179 (S.C.)
Conviction u/s 304 Part II IPC – Appeal against – Accused was below 21 at time of commission of offence – Accused already undergone one year and four months imprisonment – Bail allowed during pendency of appeal. (Baldev Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 696 (P&H)
Dowry death – Appeal against conviction – Bail during pendency of appeal – Appellant in jail for 10 years and appeal not likely to be heard in near future – There had been total disregard of provision of S.235(2) Cr.P.C. while awarding sentence upon appellant – Appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. (Jaisi Ram Vs State of U.P.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 591 (Allahabad)
Suspension of sentence – Bank employee – Cheating – Appellate Court suspended the sentence, but not conviction during pendency of appeal – Non suspension of conviction could entail serious consequences of dismissal of accused from service – Conviction suspended. (K.Bhagyanath Vs State) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 669 (Delhi)
Appeal against conviction – Appellate Court has power to suspend conviction in case it results in some disqualification or the consequences flowing from it are serious. (K.Bhagyanath Vs State) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 669 (Delhi)
Conviction – Suspension – Govt. employee – No apprehension that petitioner would lose job because of conviction – No disciplinary proceedings initiated yet – Prayer for suspension of conviction premature, hence rejected – Sentence alone suspended and accused released on bail. (Ikram Ali Vs State) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 177 (Rajasthan)
Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal – Appellate Court to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of sentence or order appealed – Order of suspension of sentence and grant of bail not to be passed as a matter of routine. (Kishori Lal Vs Rupa) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 179 (S.C.)
Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal and release on bail – Reasons has to be recorded in writing – There has to be careful consideration of the relevant aspects and the order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as a matter of routine. (Vasant Tukaram Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 648 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 860 (S.C.)
Conviction – Suspension – Notice for departmental action being taken against accused on basis of his conviction – Likelihood of termination of services of accused – Appropriate to entertain prayer for suspension of conviction which is capable of execution. (Laxman Lal & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 125 (Rajasthan)
Conviction – Appeal against – Bail – Accused spent 5 years and 4 months in prison – Sentence not suspended as accused was declared proclaimed offender during trial – A person who is declared P.O. during trial or absconded during trial cannot be automatically granted concession of bail. (Puran Chand Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 106 (P&H)
Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal – Rape of a minor girl – Accused has undergone three years and seven months of sentence – Sentence suspended during pendency of appeal. (Avtar Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 846 (P&H)
Retrial and reinvestigation – Communal frenzy – Death of 14 persons – Reinvestigation and retrial ordered as there was dishonest and fault investigation and trial was held in perfunctory manner as large number of PWs turned hostile and resiled; star witnesses threatened; Prosecuting agency not acted in requisite manner – Public Prosecutor rather acted as defence counsel; Large number of PWs not examined for one reason or the other – Even injured witness not examined; Some of the PWs examined who were relation of witness. (Zahira Habibulla H.Sheikh & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 195 (S.C.)
Appeal – Abates only on death of accused and not on death of complainant. (Sanal Kumar Vs Rajeev Kumar) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 545 (Kerala)
Appeal against acquittal – Death of complainant during pendency of petition for leave and not after the appeal was formally admitted – Representative of the complainant can continue the challenge in appeal. (Sanal Kumar Vs Rajeev Kumar) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 545 (Kerala)
Appeal against acquittal – Death of complainant – Appeal does not abate – Appeal has to be decided on merits – S.394(2) can apply only to appeal under Chapter XIX other than those under Ss.377 & 378. (Sanal Kumar Vs Rajeev Kumar) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 545 (Kerala)
Maintenance – Granted by Magistrate – Upset by Sessions Court in revision – Held, revisional Court committed illegality in substituting its own finding. (Mukesh Kumari Vs Sheo Raj Singh) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 88 (Allahabad)
S.302 – Appeal against acquittal – No embargo on appellate court to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based – When two views are possible, view favourable to accused be followed – Paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented – Interference in order of acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. (Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)
Criminal Revision Application – Limitation – Is governed by Article 131 of the Limitation Act. (Ramkrishna Jairam Damdar Vs Savita) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 508 (BOMBAY)
Revision – Delay – Can be condoned as applicability of provision of S.5 Limitation Act is not specifically excluded. (Ramkrishna Jairam Damdar Vs Savita) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 508 (BOMBAY)
Revision against order passed by a Magistrate under Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act is maintainable before Sessions Judge. (Saman Ismail Vs Rafiq Ahmad) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 358 (Allahabad)
Police filed final report – Magistrate directing further investigation – Held, accused has right to challenge order of Magistrate. (Faujdar Khan & Ors. Vs State of U.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 424 (ALLAHABAD)
Recall of order – Magistrate can recall its own order if it was absolutely unwarranted by provisions of Cr.P.C. (Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Bibi Jagir Kaur) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 282 (P&H)
Revision at instance of complainant is maintainable. (K.Pandurangan etc. Vs S.S.R.Velusamy & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 727 (S.C.)
Defence witnesses – Refusal to examine all the witnesses – Order is not interlocutory – It is intermediate or quasi-final – Revision lies against the order. (Dharamarajan Vs State) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 266 (Kerala)
Discharge – Application for discharge whether rejected or granted – Revision lies – Such an order is not an interlocutory order as such bar u/s 397(2) is not attracted – The conclusion that order rejecting such application is only interlocutory and therefore not revisable is incorrect. (Waman Punaji Shilarkar Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 388 (Bom.)
Interlocutory order – Term ‘interlocutory order’ to be used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense – It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties – The only test to determine is as to whether criminal proceedings as a whole would be calumniated. (Sanjay & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 376 (P&H)
Revision – Summoning order – An order summoning an accused is not an interlocutory order – Bar created by S.397(2) would not operate. (S.K.Bhatt Vs State of U.P. & Ors.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 495 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 464 (S.C.)
Order as to issue of process – Not purely interlocutory – Revision challenging same maintainable. (Shriniwas Vs Laxminarayan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 121 (Bombay)
Dishonour of cheque – Inadequacy of sentence – Appeal against – Not maintainable – Right to file such appeal vests exclusively with State and private complainant at whose complaint criminal proceedings were initiated has not been given such right – Private complainant is however competent to maintain revision against inadequacy of sentence – Cheque for Rs.60,000/- dishonoured – Fine imposed Rs.10,000/- only – Revisional Court enhanced fine to Rs.65,000/- – Petition of accused for quashing revisional order enhancing fine is not maintainable, as it amounts to second revision which is not permissible under Code. (Nagaraj Vs Gowramma) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 742 (Karnataka)
If Court can legitimately come to a conclusion that there is no case for going to the trial even at initial stage, such prosecution needs to be dismissed, dropped and such accused needs to be exonerated even at initial stage – It can also be done even after process has been issued and the Court has been called on to give a verdict after considering all the material brought to its notice by such an accused. (Mamta Kulkarni Vs Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 505 (Bombay)
Non appearance of accused – Non bailable warrants issued against him – Warrants made bailable. (Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 241 (Rajasthan)
Revision – Slip shod orders, cryptic orders should not be passed by revisional Court – It is duty of Revisional Court to correct all the mistakes in the proceedings or in the action of Subordinate Courts which have been brought to its notice or come to its notice suo motu. (Behram S.Doctor Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 638 (Bombay)
Revision – Quite meritless and based on technicalities of law – Cost of Rs.5,000/- imposed with direction that the amount be transmitted to High Court Bar Association Library Fund. (Punjab Tyre House & Ors. Vs State of Gujarat) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 18 (Gujarat)
Acquittal – Revision by complainant – Not to be exercised lightly – It can be exercised only in exceptional cases where interests of public justice require interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. (Chintaman Prasad Dhanushadhari Dubey Vs Kunjbihari Babulal Tiwari & Ors.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 107 (Bombay)
Revision – Jurisdiction of High Court is not to be exercised lightly when invoked by private complainant. (Khet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 236 (Rajasthan)
Revisional jurisdiction – Not to be lightly exercised when it is invoked by a private complainant. (Vipin Anand & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 412 (Rajasthan)
Revision against interlocutory order – Not maintainable – High Court can interfere with interlocutory order in exercise of power under u/s 482 Cr.P.C. if he order causes miscarriage of justice or where the order is palpably illegal or unjustified. (Jagir Singh Sidhu Vs Harbeant Singh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 199 (P&H)
Order granting or refusing to return property where interim custody sought on supratnama – Not interlocutory. (Milind Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 139 (Bombay)
Passport – Seizure – Order concerning seizure and release of passport, held, not interlocutory order simpliciter and hence revision lies against such order. (Brijesh Singh Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 210 (Karnataka)
Bail – Modifications in conditions of bail – Sessions Judge set aside the said order in revision – Order of Sessions Judge setting aside the order of Magistrate in revision is without jurisdiction and non est in the eye of law. (Brijesh Singh & Anr. Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 210 (Karnataka)
Petition u/s 482 against the order passed in revision – Not maintainable. (Mukunda Ramaji Dunedar Vs Smt.Sitabai) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 757 (Bombay)
Revision against order of CJM dismissed by Sessions Judge – Second revision before High Court is maintainable u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Jurisdiction of Court under S.397(3) remains unaffected. (Munish Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 463 (P&H)
Revision – Court has jurisdiction to appreciate evidence afresh if finding is based on no evidence or misreading of evidence or because of perversity in the finding recorded by lower Court. (Smt.Rahas Mohapatra Vs Dr.Balakrushna Dash) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 461 (Orissa)
Acquittal – Revision against – In the absence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct of the trial Revisional Court has no jurisdiction to interfere at the instance of the informant. (Gobind Ram Vs Murari Lal) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 602 (P&H)
Retrial – Direction for retrial should not be made in all or every case where acquittal of accused is for want of adequate or reliable evidence – Even if a retrial is directed in exercise of revisional powers by High Court, evidence already recorded at the initial trial cannot be erased or wiped out from the record of the case – Trial Judge has to decide the case on the basis of evidence already on record and the additional evidence which would be recorded on retrial – Law laid down in ‘Best Bakery Case’ cannot be applied to all cases – In Best Bakery case, the first trial was a farce and only a ‘mock trial’ – Such extraordinary situation alone can justify the direction for retrial. (Satyajit Banerjee & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 916 (S.C.)
Revision by private party – Case instituted on police report – Complainant competent to file revision in exceptional cases. (Subhash Chandra Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 597 (Rajasthan)
Revision – Concurrent finding of facts recorded by Courts below – Not to be interfered with unless glaring features which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice is brought to the notice of the Court. (Sunil Vs State of Kerala) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 462 (Kerala)
Acquittal – Revision against – High Court can order retrial if there is a glaring defect in the procedure or manifest error on a point of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case or where the trial Court has illegally shut out the evidence which ought to have been considered or where the material evidence which clinches has been overlooked. (Sangappa V.Tenginakai Vs State) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 279 (Bombay)
Revision – Revisional Jurisdiction – Circumstantial Evidence – Overlooking of evidence by trial Court – Remand – Where evidence has been overlooked revisional court can set aside order of trial court and order re-trial by remanding the case – Does not amounts to re-appreciation of evidence – Order of High Court upheld. (Ram Briksh Singh & Ors. Vs. Ambika Yadav & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 410 (S.C.)
Revision – Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope and Ambit – Appreciation of Evidence – Jurisdiction cannot be invoked only to correct wrong appreciation of evidence – Court not to act as a court of appeal – Court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. (Ram Briksh Singh & Ors. Vs. Ambika Yadav & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 410 (S.C.)
An order against which revision lies cannot be challenged u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Sibu Vs Mohinder Singh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 264 (P&H)
Transfer of a criminal case – Review – Trial transferred from jurisdiction of Madras High Court to jurisdiction of Karnataka High Court – Apprehension by applicant regarding his security – Apprehensions with regard to the Cauvery Water dispute, forest brigand Veerappan, have got nothing to do with the judicial function of the Court – State of Karnataka assuring security to applicant and witnesses – Review Petition dismissed. (K.Anbazhagan Vs Superintendent of Police, Chennai & Ors. ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 630 (S.C.)
Case and counter case – One case triable by Magistrate and the other triable by Court of Sessions – Magistrate finding the cases being counter to each other committed the counter case to the Court of Sessions where the other case was pending – Such commitment can be deemed to have been done u/s 323 Cr.P.C. – Impugned order passed by Sessions Judge in returning back the record to the Court of Magistrate, set aside. (Ramakanta Patra Vs State of Orissa) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 534 (ORISSA)
Transfer of case from one State to another – Case u/s 420 IPC – Case tried at Bangalore – Petitioner a widow, aged 80 years and suffering from Cancer – Not possible for her to effectively defend herself at Bangalore – Case transferred to Court at Bombay. (Mrs.Urvashi Govind Advani Vs State of Karnataka) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 252 (S.C.)
Transfer of case – Power to transfer a case to be invoked only sparingly – Allegations levelled by litigants need to be scrutinized with utmost care and circumspection – Transfer of a case on the mere asking of an apprehensive litigant will not only scandalize the Court but browbeating the Presiding Officer also and thereby causing direct interference in the independent and fair administration of justice. (Madan Lal Vs CBI/ACU-III New Delhi) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 620 (P&H)
Transfer of case – Wife filing case u/s 498-A IPC against husband – Father and brother of wife Advocates and their influence is such that no senior lawyer was ready to argue bail application of husband – Hundreds of lawyers thronged Court when bail application came up for hearing – Case transferred from Court at place ‘B’ to Court at place ‘G’. (Gulshan Mallik Vs State of U.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 461 (ALLAHABAD)
Transfer of Corruption Case – Corruption case registered against Police Officer at his place of posting – Many cases registered by police officer against criminals at that place which now pending in Courts – Petitioner apprehending danger to his life – Case transferred from Ferozepur to Sessions Division, Ambala. (Gurcharan Singh Pherurai Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 711 (P&H)
Transfer of case – Murder of wife – Child witness – Nine year old daughter of accused is afraid of deposing against her father & relatives at the place of occurrence – State agreeing to provide necessary security & protection – Transfer petition dismissed. (Leelawati & Anr. Vs Ramesh Chand & Ors. ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 716 (S.C.)
Agreement to sell – However, property sold to some other person – FIR u/s 420 IPC – Civil suit for specific performance also filed – Written statement also filed – No question of harassment or embarrassment from continuing the criminal proceedings – Petition for stay of criminal proceedings dismissed. (Nand Lal Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 418 (P&H)
Compensation – Recoverable as if it is a fine – Default clause imposed to undergo imprisonment in case of default of payment cannot be sustained. (Rajendran Vs Jose) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 663 (Kerala)
Sentence of 10 years each in two different cases for offence under NDPS Act, decided on different dates – Sentence subsequently passed to run concurrently with the earlier sentence – However, sentence in case of non payment of fine to be undergone separately and independently. (Mohan Bhanudas Mohite Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 762 (Bombay)
Concurrent running of sentence – Sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the same person in two different convictions would converge into one and thereafter it would flow through one stream alone – However if the sentence in one of the two cases is not imprisonment for life but only a lesser term the convergence will take place and the post-convergence flow would be through the same channel. (R.D.Bharti Vs The Home Secretary, Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 73 (P&H)
Accused causing death of a person in jail while undergoing life imprisonment – Accused sentenced to 7 years RI u/s 304 Part II – Both the sentences shall run concurrently. (Balwan Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 517 (P&H)
Conviction in 9 cases – Separate orders of different dates – Sentences shall run consecutively as no order passed by Magistrate that sentence will run concurrently. (R.D.Bharti Vs The Home Secretary, Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 73 (P&H)
Person undergoing a sentence of life – Subsequent sentence for life imprisonment – Shall run concurrently – No separate order is necessary. (Chacko Vs State of Kerala) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 239 (Kerala)
Offence u/s 326 – Imprisonment for three years – Appellate Court convicted accused u/s 304 Part II warranting heavier sentence of imprisonment for a longer period – Accused in prison for over seven years till disposal of State’s appeal – Held, sentence restricted to period of detention already undergone by him. (State Vs Gurappa alias Gurava) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 706 (Karnataka)
Accused if remains in prison during stages of investigation, enquiry or trial of a particular case and later convicted and sentenced then earlier period of detention undergone by him to be counted as part of sentence imposed on him. (R.D.Bharti Vs The Home Secretary, Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 73 (P&H)
Period of detention – To be given set off against term of imprisonment – Detention however cannot be given set off against imprisonment awarded in default of payment of fine – Provision is mandatory. (Ramhu & Ors. Vs State of M.P.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 114 (Chhattisgarh)
Sentence of imprisonment – Period of detention undergone by accused during investigation, inquiry or trial before the date of conviction has to be set off against term of imprisonment. (Virma Ram Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 123 (Rajasthan)
Set off – It is the period of detention undergone prior to conviction in the same case. (Chacko Vs State of Kerala) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 239 (Kerala)
Conviction u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act – Remission of sentence – Appropriate Govt. to grant remission is Central Govt. and not State Govt. (State of Kerala Vs Soma Thomas) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 33 (Kerala)
Remission of sentence – Appropriate Govt. – If the sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, the Central Government is the appropriate Government and in other cases the State Government is the appropriate Government. (State of Kerala Vs Soma Thomas) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 33 (Kerala)
Remission – Right to grant – Vests in the appropriate Govt. and not in any Court. (K.Pandurangan etc. Vs S.S.R.Velusamy & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 727 (S.C.)
Premature release – Accused undergoing sentence of more than 14 years imprisonment – It would be wrong to presume that if accused is released, he will revert to crime – Premature release cannot be refused on surmises and conjectures that if accused is released he will be danger to his own life or life of the complainant party, unless there are very strong and substantial reasons to arrive at such conclusions – It must be kept in view, that the gap of 14 years between the date of crime and the application for consideration of premature release is much more a sufficient time to heel up worn effect of the complainant party. (Dhula & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 39 (Rajasthan)
Life imprisonment for dowry death – It is not heinous offence – Accused is entitled to premature release after serving 10 years actual imprisonment and 14 years including remissions as per 2(b) of Haryana Government Instructions dated 8.8.2000. (Chhajju Vs State of Haryana & Ors.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 242 (P&H)
Life convict – Cannot be released before he has actually undergone imprisonment for a period of 14 years – Constitutional powers cannot be exercised on irrelevant and irrational considerations – State is bound to make guidelines for pardon under Art.161 of the Constitution. (Suo Motu Proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Vs State of Kerala) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 709 (Kerala)
Life convict – Already undergone sentence of 10 years and with remissions has undergone sentence of about 17 years – Petitioner seeking pre-mature release as per instructions of State Govt. dated 15.8.2002 – State directed to consider and decide within one month. (Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 470 (P&H)
Under trial accused – Medical treatment – Permission to go abroad for medical treatment which is not available in India – It is the Constitutional right of accused to lead a meaningful life – State directed to consider the request of the accused. (Lallan Rai Vs The State of U.P.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 537 (Allahabad)
Life convict – Pre-mature release – Entitled to be released on serving 14 years actual imprisonment – Sentence awarded to a prisoner for an offence committed while in prison or during suspension of sentence not to be taken into account. (Ravi Kumar alias Bitu Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 110 (P&H)
Premature release – Governor of a State in exercise of clemency powers under Article 161 of the Constitution cannot grant remission to prisoners convicted by Courts outside the concerned State, but undergoing sentence in jail in the State. (Govt. of A.P. & Ors. Vs M.T.Khan) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 117 (S.C.)
Pre-mature release – Ghastly murder by chopping off head with Gandasi in a pre-determined manner – Held, instructions dated 13.4.2001 do not apply – However the case of the petitioners be considered by State in accordance with instructions dated 8.7.1991. (Avtar Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 592 (P&H)
Accused involved in murder case – Only role attributed to him was that he made an oral exhortation – Accused continuing in jail for past one year – Conditional bail granted. (Dharmendra Chandulal Patel Vs State of Gujarat) AIR 2002 S.C. 395
Bail application u/s 437 Cr.P.C. – To be decided on the same day it is filed and if Court decides in a rare and exceptional case not to decide it on the same day Court must record reasons in writing. (Smt.Amarawati & Anr. Vs State of U.P.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 86 (Allahabad)
Bail – Cancellation – Offence u/s 498-A IPC – Accused granted bail on the premise that there is possibility of compromise between the parties – No compromise took place – Breach of compromise is not a ground for cancellation of bail – Having granted bail, it is not open to Court to cancel the same on a ground alien to the grounds mentioned for cancellation of bail in the said provision of law. (Biman Chatterjee Vs Sanchita Chatterjee & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 25 (S.C.)
Murder – Bail – Petitioner fired shot from his pistol but the shot did not hit any one – Petitioner is also alleged to have inflicted injuries on the deceased but it is not clear whether those find corroboration from the medical evidence – It is for the trial Court to determine the same – Bail granted. (Jaswant Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 37 (P&H)
Bail – Modification and relaxation of conditions – Magistrate is competent to modify or relax conditions of bail. (Brijesh Singh & Anr. Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 210 (Karnataka)
Juvenile when accused of an offence under NDPS Act – He is entitled to bail. (Gopu Dlaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 204 (A.P.)
Offence under NDPS Act punishable for five years or more – Bail – Accused cannot be granted bail unless limitations contained u/s 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. and Section 37 of NDPS are satisfied – Limitations contained in S.37(1) of NDPS Act are in addition to limitations enjoined under Cr.P.C. – Limitations in Cr.P.C. have to be read alongwith limitations in S.37(1) so long as they are not inconsistent with S.37(1). (Gopu Dlaiah Vs State of A.P.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 204 (A.P.)
Growing of ganja plants – No evidence that accused were owners of the field – Accused allowed bail. (Gopu Dlaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 204 (A.P.)
Bail – Power to grant interim bail is implicit in power to grant bail. (Smt.Amarawati & Anr. Vs State of U.P.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 86 (Allahabad)
Bail – Previous conviction of an accused for a heinous offence punishable with imprisonment for life, his involvement in other crimes and the quantum of punishment for the offences in which the applicant is seeking bail are all relevant factors to which the Court should consciously advert while taking a decision in the matter of enlargement on bail. (Ram Pratap Yadav Vs Mitra Sen Yadav & Anr.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 529 (S.C.)
Bail – Conditions laid under section 437 (1) are sine qua non for granting bail even under S.439. (Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 340 (S.C.)
Bail – Grant or refusal of bail – Factors – Court should exercise discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course – Prima facie reasons as to why bail is being given must be indicated specially in case of a serious offence – Court to consider nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence – Reasonable apprehension of tempering of witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant be seen – Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge also to be seen by the court. (Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 340 (S.C.)
Bail – Successive applications for bail – Scope and Ambit – Accused has right to make successive applications for Bail – However court entertaining subsequent application has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier application was rejected – Court has to see fresh ground which persuade it to take a view different from one taken in the earlier application – No fresh grounds made out – Order of High Court granting bail set aside. (Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 340 (S.C.)
Bail – Triple Murder – High court granting bail to accused as he was in jail for 3-1/2 years and trial was not likely to conclude – Grant of bail by High Court merely on these grounds cancelled by Supreme Court – No. of witnesses turned hostile – Seven earlier application dismissed – Charges against accused serious in nature – Allegations of tempering of witnesses – Bail cancelled by Supreme Court. (Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 340 (S.C.)
Bail – Cancellation – On ground of supervening circumstances – Permissible only in those cases where it can be held that fair trial is no longer probable unless concession of bail is taken back. (Sita Ram Singh Vs State of Bihar) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 434 (PATNA)
Bail – Material consideration for grant of bail is whether accused would be readily available for trail and whether he is likely to abuse discretion granted in his favour – Conditions can be imposed to relieve apprehension of State. (Shivasumbramanyam Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 373 (Karnataka)
Pre-arrest bail – Offence u/ss 17/17A/17B/18/27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and S.420 IPC – FIR lodged – S.18 provides that in case of contravention of the provisions of the Act, complaint is to be filed by the Drug Inspector with Magistrate and no FIR is to be registered – Offence u/s 420 IPC how made out not explained – Moreover at the time of registration of FIR S.420 IPC was not added – Pre-arrest bail allowed. (Chandhan Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 573 (P&H)
Offence u/ss 302, 143, 147, 148, 149, 341 IPC, Ss.25(1)(A) of Arms Act, S.135 of Bombay Police Act – Anticipatory bail granted by Sessions Court by observing that there was political rivalry and that there was diversion with regard to arms held by accused and that accused had deep roots in society – Crime was committed when accused were on bail in earlier criminal cases – Weapons and other muddamal articles used in crime were yet to be recovered – Court below failed to keep in mind necessity of custodial interrogation – In a serious offence like murder, anticipatory bail should not be granted at initial stage of investigation – Ample evidence connecting accused with crime – Grant of bail was unjust, illegal, improper and perverse and liable to be set aside. (Jayeshbhai @ Panchbhai Muljibhai Satodiya Vs State of Gujarat) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 950 (Gujarat)
Dowry death – Brother of husband and his wife allowed bail as they were not to get any benefit from dowry item if brought by deceased. (Nikhilesh Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 671 (P&H)
Dowry death – Accused challaned u/s 302, 304B, 498A, but discharged by Court on request of Police – Subsequently Court summoned them as accused in exercise of power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. – Bail allowed. (Nikhilesh Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 671 (P&H)
Anticipatory bail – Offence under S.307 IPC – Discretion to grant pre-arrest bail could be exercised only if the offence alleged to be committed is not grave and there is no need of custodial interrogation – Keeping in view the nature of charges, motive and obvious need of custodial interrogation, no case under S.438 Cr.P.C. made out. (Hoshiar Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 703 (P&H)
Bail – Attempt to murder – Only “Danda” blow attributed to petitioner which act falls under S.325 IPC which is bailable offence – Bail allowed to petitioner. (Harish Sasan Vs State of Haryana) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 624 (P&H)
Accused organised an impersonation to write examination paper for him in HCS Examination – Anticipatory bail refused – Menance of malpractices in the competitive examinations is on the rise and it would not be in the public interest to deal with these type of crimes leniently. (Parveen Kumar Vs Union Territory, Chandigarh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 724 (P&H)
Pre-arrest bail – Forgery case – Accused evading arrest for two months by eluding police – Speaks volume of their capacity to hide themselves from due process of law for a long period – The competence of the petitioners to hide strengthens the belief that they may not even be available to the investigating agency or the trial Court at appropriate time – Pre-arrest bail refused. (Mohd. Zakir Hussain Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 12 (P&H)
Anticipatory bail – Court has power to grant anticipatory bail even when cognizance is taken or charge sheet is filed. (Bharat Chaudhary & Anr. Vs State of Bihar & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 322 (S.C.)
Anticipatory bail – Offence u/ss 406, 498-A IPC – Bail granted subject to deposit of Rs.2.5 lakhs – Nothing on record to indicate that any of the dowry articles or any other articles have been misappropriated – Condition improper – Accused in the event of arrest be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-. (Dinesh Ahluwalia Vs State) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 696 (Delhi)
FIR u/ss 498-A, 406 & 506 IPC registered against husband for demand of dowry and that wife was beaten mercilessly and turned out of matrimonial home – It was stated that on earlier occasion accused tried to kill the wife by opening knob of gas cylinder, but no report was lodged and thereafter parties lived together despite the incident – Anticipatory bail allowed. (Vinod Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 482 (P&H)
Anticipatory bail – In a serious offence like murder, anticipatory bail should not be granted at the initial stage of investigation. (Jayeshbhai @ Panchbhai Muljibhai Satodiya Vs State of Gujarat) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 950 (Gujarat)
Rape – Committed for the first time in 1997 and repeated thereafter several times – Matter not reported to police prior to 4.10.2001 – Anticipatory bail allowed. (Mangal Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 182 (P&H)
Cheating – To show his bona fides accused deposited an amount of Rs.5.82 lacs in Court and granted anticipatory bail – No settlement between parties – Amount not to be released to ‘N’ – Amount to be deposited in an interest bearing account till such time as appropriate orders are passed by appropriate court in this regard. (Jagtar Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 294 (S.C.)
Offence u/ss 498-A & 506 IPC – Husband and father-in-law already arrested and interrogated – Anticipatory bail granted to mother-in-law and sister-in-law. (Jatto Bai Vs State of Punjab) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 598 (P&H)
Offence under NDPS Act – Application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable in view of S.37 – Recourse to provisions of S.36A(3) of the Act also cannot be taken. (Rakesh Kumar alias Kukka Vs State of H.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 294 (H.P.)
Poppy husk – Recovery of 40 Kg. – It is more than small quantity but less than commercial quantity – Accused was granted interim bail – Anticipatory bail allowed taking into account the legislative interdict and shift in the sentencing policy and the liberalization of the rigid conditions governing the grant of bail. (Sulakhan Vs State of Punjab) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 708 (P&H)
Anticipatory bail – Dismissal of bail application twice earlier – Concealing this fact from Court – Application dismissed for no fresh ground for anticipatory bail – Cost of Rs.20,000/- imposed for not coming to Court with clean hands. (Harmail Singh Vs Punjab State) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 566 (P&H)
Section 8 – Anticipatory Bail – Maintainability of anticipatory bail for offences under 1966 Act – All offences u/s 8 of 1966 Act are not bailable – Since all offences are not bailable – Application for anticipatory bail is maintainable. (Union of India & Anr. Vs State of Assam) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 41 (S.C.)
Offence u/s 3 – Anticipatory bail – When accused called the complainant “Kutya Chuhria” he was not aware that complainant belonged to Balmiki Caste – Prima facie the essential ingredients of the offence are missing and for that reason bar of S.18 of the Act does not apply – Bail allowed. (Pishora Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 153 (P&H)
‘Reason to believe’ – Must be founded on reasonable grounds – Mere ‘fear’ is not ‘belief’ – Vague apprehension is not sufficient – Ground of belief must be capable of being examined. (Adri Dharan Das Vs State of West Bengal) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)
Accused declared P.O. – When accused is absconding there is no question of granting anticipatory or regular bail. (Parminder Singh Garcha Vs State of Punjab) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 428 (P&H)
Accused summoned u/s 302 IPC in a complaint case on the allegation that husband alongwith three relatives killed the wife – All accused granted anticipatory bail except the husband on the condition that the accused will not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer and that they will not interfere with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly and that they will not leave the country without the previous permission of the Court and that they will surrender the passport, if any. (Gurmit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 70 (P&H)
Anticipatory bail – Accused absenting after appearing once – Warrants issued – Held, in such a case anticipatory bail is not available to accused. (Venkatachalaiah & Ors. Vs State by Kadugodi Police, Bangalore & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 435 (Karnataka)
Anticipatory bail – Can be considered favourably if allegations in FIR have been levelled to achieve an oblique motive like lowering the reputation of the accused or tarnishing his image in public eye and if accused is not likely to flee from the process of law or to misuse the same. (Lehri Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 435 (P&H)
Anticipatory bail – Can be granted in absence of records of the case as might be maintained by the investigating agency. (Sanjeev Chandel Vs State of H.P.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 582 (H.P.)
Anticipatory bail – Charge sheet filed – Warrants issued – Held, where warrant is issued in pursuance of filing charge-sheet or issuance of summons and non appearance of the party, the remedy under S.438 is available – However, if accused appears once and absents thereafter then remedy u/s 438 is not available. (Venkatachalaiah & Ors. Vs State by Kadugodi Police, Bangalore & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 435 (Karnataka)
Anticipatory bail – Complainant purchased total sleeping system at a cost of Rs.85,000/- on an assurance that he will get relief from physical problem viz. pain in scapular region, spondylitis etc. and he did not get any relief by its use – Applicant deserves anticipatory bail – Bail allowed – Certain conditions imposed. (Colonal Prakash Vs State) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 339 (M.P.)
Anticipatory bail – Complaint for non bailable offence – Magistrate sent complaint to police u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. but still no case registered by police – Application for anticipatory bail is maintainable. (Sanjay Kumar Singhania & Ors. Vs State ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 643 (Calcutta)
Anticipatory bail – Death by rash and negligent driving under intoxication – Accused a doctor by profession who also suffered injuries – Accused not likely to flee from trial – Anticipatory bail allowed. (Dr.Monika Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 681 (P&H)
Anticipatory bail – Ex MLA – Corruption case – Where political considerations are suspected, it becomes obligatory on Court to protect liberty of accused. (Lehri Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 435 (P&H)
Anticipatory bail – Filing of charge-sheet by police does not put an end to the power of Court to grant anticipatory bail. (Venkatachalaiah & Ors. Vs State by Kadugodi Police, Bangalore & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 435 (Karnataka)
Anticipatory bail – Grant of anticipatory bail without sufficient and reasonable opportunity to investigating agency to file objections – Order cannot be sustained – Matter remanded for fresh decision. (Union of India & Anr. Vs Yusuf Razak Dhanani & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 412 (S.C.)
Anticipatory bail – Granted on condition of payment of Rs.Ten lakhs – Condition held unreasonable – Condition quashed. (Lokendra Verma Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 514 (Rajasthan)
Anticipatory bail – No evidence on the basis of which petitioner can be connected with the crime except that of co-accused which is inadmissible – Anticipatory bail granted. (Balu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 130 (Rajasthan)
Anticipatory bail – One injury by sharp weapon attributed to main accused – Applicants implicated because they were with the main accused – Bail granted subject to certain conditions. (Bhoja & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 436 (Rajasthan)
Anticipatory bail – Regular bail granted to co-accused – By itself is not a ground to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to petitioner. (Vinay Mahajan Vs State of Punjab) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 205 (P&H)
Anticipatory bail – Will – Forgery – Civil suit regarding genuineness or otherwise of Will pending – Custodial interrogation will not serve any purpose – Anticipatory bail allowed. (Ravinder Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 07 (P&H)
Bail – All the documents necessary for investigation already with the Investigating Agency – It cannot be said that custodial interrogation is not required. (Parminder Singh Garcha Vs State of Punjab) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 428 (P&H)
Bail – Causing loss of Rs.One crore of public money – Keeping in view the magnitude of seriousness of offence, custodial interrogation would be result oriented and effective – Court should lean in favour of custodial interrogation in case where huge public funds are involved. (Vinay Mahajan Vs State of Punjab) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 205 (P&H)
Bail in rape case – Accused admitted in hospital for operation on the date of incident – Version not disputed – Anticipatory bail allowed without going into merits of the case. (Harpreet Singh alias Happy Vs State of Punjab) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 628 (P&H)
Blanket order – Normally a direction should not be issued that applicant shall be released on bail “whenever arrested for whichever offence whatsoever” – Such `blanket order’ should not be passed as it would serve as a blanket to cover or protect any and every kind of allegedly unlawful activity. (Adri Dharan Das Vs State of West Bengal) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)
Charge of cheating – Wrongful loss and forging certificates of University – Anticipatory bail sought on ground that case is based on documents which are in possession of police – All documents not in possession of police – Bail refused. (State of Punjab Vs Bachan Singh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 851 (P&H)Cognizable offence – Court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of accused in a cognizable offence. (Adri Dharan Das Vs State of West Bengal) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)
Court cannot restrain arrest – Direction can only be issued that in the event of arrest of an accused on an accusation of committing a non-bailable offence, he shall be released on bail subject to such conditions as Court deems fit to impose. (Adri Dharan Das Vs State of West Bengal) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)
Interim bail – Petitioner residing in Ajmer (Rajasthan) – Offence u/ss 498A, 323, 506B and 34 IPC in Chhattisgarh State – Taking into consideration the facts into account interim bail allowed for 15 days – Petitioner to thereafter approach for regular bail. (Jaswinder Singh & Ors. Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 114 (Rajasthan)
Legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under section 438 of the Code. (Adri Dharan Das Vs State of West Bengal) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)
Pre-arrest bail – Name of petitioner not mentioned in FIR – Evident from Parcha Bayan, statement recorded under sections 161 and statement recorded u/s 164 and affidavit that petitioner was not present at the time of incident – Pre-arrest bail granted on certain conditions. (Ram Dayal @ Kalu Vs State) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 829 (Rajasthan)
Proclaimed offender – Has no right to seek pre-arrest bail. (Rajbir alias Lilu Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 190 (P&H)
Proclaimed offender – Normally when accused is absconding there is no question of granting anticipatory or regular bail. (State of Punjab Vs Bachan Singh) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 851 (P&H)
Provision cannot be invoked after arrest of accused. (Adri Dharan Das Vs State of West Bengal) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)
Transitory anticipatory bail – Sought from High Court of H.P. whereas case registered outside territorial jurisdiction of the High Court – Held, High Court can entertain an application to grant of interim bail to accused to enable to surrender before Court having jurisdiction. (Sanjeev Chandel Vs State of H.P.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 582 (H.P.)
Suicide at her parents house – Complaint against accused that they were not satisfied with dowry and they were harassing the deceased, consequent to which she developed depression – Case of accused that deceased was a schizophrenic psychotic patient with cyclic depression and was under medical treatment – Deceased tried to commit suicide at her parents house about a year earlier also – Both sides having documents – Genuineness of such documents can only be gone into at the time of trial – Accused ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest. (M.P.Lohia Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 132 (S.C.)
Bail – Challan presented as provided u/s 299 Cr.P.C. – Accused directed to surrender before trial Court and if bail application is moved then the same be decided on the same day – Accused not to be arrested in the meanwhile. (Kaptan & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 28 (Rajasthan)
Anticipatory bail – Offence under SCST Act – Ten years elapsed when FIR was registered – Accused directed to seek regular bail from trial Court – Arrest of accused stayed till his bail application is considered and disposed of by the trial Court and in case bail application is declined, arrest of petitioner shall remain stayed for two weeks to enable him to approach High Court. (Davinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 27 (P&H)
Accused granted pre-arrest bail for three months – Accused did not surrender despite availing benefit of pre-arrest bail – Accused lost all benefits of regular bail in view of his conduct. (Pankaj Bansal Vs State of Punjab) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 97 (P&H)
Anticipatory bail – Declined – However, accused given protection from arrest for 8 days to enable him to apply for regular bail – Application for regular bail also dismissed – Accused thereafter cannot apply for anticipatory bail to High Court – Once accused has chosen to move trial Court for regular bail then right of anticipatory bail goes. (Santosh Jain Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 719 (P&H)
Anticipatory bail – Once application for regular bail is filed then right of anticipatory bail is not available. (Santosh Jain Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 719 (P&H)
Anticipatory/Regular bail – For making an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. the fundamental requirement is that the accused should be in custody – If an accused is granted anticipatory bail u/s 438 it is for the limited duration during which accused has to move for regular bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C. – Accused can apply for regular bail only after surrendering to custody. (Sunita Devi Vs State of Bihar & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 415 (S.C.)
Bail – Application directly to High Court – In exceptional cases and special circumstances High Court can entertain a petition under S.438 or 439 Cr.P.C. directly. (Shivasumbramanyam Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 373 (Karnataka)
Cheating case – Pre-arrest bail granted till regular bail application was decided by Court – Regular bail application rejected – Accused was required to surrender after availing benefit of pre-arrest bail – In view of conduct of accused he is directed to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to complainant within a period of 30 days. (Pankaj Bansal Vs State of Punjab) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 97 (P&H)
Offence u/ss 498-A, 406 IPC – Sessions Judge granting interim bail with direction to accused to seek regular bail from Magistrate – Regular bail refused by Magistrate – Accused not taken in custody – Accused seeking anticipatory bail from High Court – Application not maintainable – Accused should surrender and seek regular bail. (Jaswinder Singh Jaryal Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 635 (P&H)
Anticipatory bail granted by High Court in murder case – On challan being put in Magistrate cannot commit accused to custody – Magistrate can ask accused to furnish bonds so as to ensure that accused appears before him during committal proceedings and also before Court of Session after the case is committed to it. (Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Bibi Jagir Kaur) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 282 (P&H)
Bail – The distinction between an order in terms of Section 438 and that in terms of Section 439 is that the latter is passed after arrest whereas former is passed in anticipation of arrest and becomes effective at the very moment of arrest. (Sunita Devi Vs State of Bihar & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 415 (S.C.)
Bail and anticipatory bail – It is not mandate of law that application in the first instance should be filed before Sessions Court – An applicant cannot be thrown out if coming directly to High Court on the ground that he has failed to approach the Sessions Court – Applicant is not required to make out an exceptional case before his petition is entertained by High Court. (Balan Vs State of Kerala) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 684 (Kerala)
Bail – Cancellation – High Court granted bail in a murder case – Accused also involved in other serious offences – High Court did not consider this fact while exercising its discretion of granting bail – Bail cancelled. (Sompal Singh Vs Sunil Rathi) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 345 (S.C.)
Murder – Bail – Accused inflicted an injury to PW but no injury attributed to petitioner on the person of deceased – Three co-accused already granted bail whose role was similar to that of accused – Accused already in custody for 2 years and 8 months – Trial to take time – Bail allowed. (Karamvir @ Karambir Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 159 (P&H)
Murder – Bail – Opinion of Board of Doctors that death caused by myocardial infraction and not on account of external injuries caused in the ordinary course of circumstances – Prima facie offence u/s 302 does not appear to have been made out – Even if there was common intention the same was to cause beating and not to cause death – Petitioners directed to be released on bail. (Robin Singh Vs State (NCT of Delhi)) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 897 (Delhi)
Murder – Bail – No injury attributed to accused – Petitioner is alleged to be armed and available at spot and exhorted his father to kill the deceased – Accused in jail for one year – It will take a long time before trial is concluded – Bail granted. (Satwant Singh alias Satta Vs The State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 245 (P&H)
Bail – No injury on vital part of body of deceased which can be said to have been caused by the petitioners – Co-accused already granted bail – Petitioners in custody for last one year and two months – Bail granted. (Balkishan & Ors. Vs The State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 599 (P&H)
Bail – No specific injury attributed to the petitioners – Main allegations against other accused who gave lathi blows on vital parts of the body of deceased – Bail granted. (Dharam Chand Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 421 (P&H)
Bail – Kidnapping and murder case – Challan put up – Accused placed in column No.2 – However during trial petitioner summoned for trial – Bail allowed on the plea that after submission of challan custodial interrogation is not required. (Mahesh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 122 (P&H)
Bail – Dowry death – Prosecution of husband, his father and mother – Deceased left behind two children aged 3 years and 14 months – Minor children also in jail – Bail allowed to mother. (Krishna Devi Handa Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 471 (P&H)
Rash and negligent driving – Death of two persons – At this stage it is not possible to reach a positive conclusion that offence u/s 302 or 304 IPC is made out – Bail allowed. (Gurcharan Singh @ Chanan Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 81 (P&H)
Accused 61 years old lady – No specific role attributed to her in the occurrence in which her daughter-in-law was humiliated – Petitioner in custody for six months – Bail allowed. (Rajwanti alias Rajo Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 419 (P&H)
Bail – Offence u/s 306 IPC – Trial not progressing – Accused in custody for more than one year – Bail allowed. (Jagmohan Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 42 (P&H)
Bail – Abetment- Allegation against accused that he entered the house of the complainant and caught hold of the daughter of the complainant who committed suicide on the next day – Accused in custody for last since 6 months – Bail granted. (Amit @ Mittu Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 719 (P&H)
Accused facing trial under Sections 307/326/323/34 IPC – Accused in custody for 14 months – Complainant already examined – No other eye witness which may constitute basis for the apprehension that the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution – Accused released on bail. (Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 798 (P&H)
Prosecutrix aged 17 years induced by applicant to go with him promising her to marry her – Case registered u/s 363, 366 and 376 on recovery of girl – Prosecutrix had moved with the applicant from 30.6.2002 to 7.9.2002 from place to place – Shows prosecutrix a consenting party – Bail allowed. (Bisahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 260 (Chhattisgarh)
Rape – Name of petitioner not mentioned in FIR – Statement of prosecutrix u/s 164 Cr.P.C. that she had gone of her on accord – Bail allowed to accused. (Krishan Vs Sardaras) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 152 (P&H)
Abduction and rape case – Evidence showing that prosecutrix was roaming about with one of accused earlier to abduction – Prosecutrix aged 23/24 years – Two accused already granted bail – Bail allowed. (Parshant Pathak alias Micky Vs State of Punjab) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 329 (P&H)
Bail – Accused, a self proclaimed sidh/saint – He exploited the prosecutrix and impregnated her several times because of which she gave birth to four children and there were abortions thrice – None of the children so born survived – Skull of a child recovered during investigation on identification of a place by prosecutrix – Accused refused his blood sample for DNA test – No case for grant of bail made out. (Baba Sohan Giri Vs State of H.P.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 832 (H.P.)
Bail – Rape – Prosecutrix had gone to collect wages from accused where rape was committed upon her – She however did not support charge in her evidence – Fit case to admit accused to bail. (Jailal Lakda Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 672 (M.P.)
Bail – Offence u/s 376-G IPC – Accused handicapped and in jail for 13 months – Trial likely to take time – Prosecutrix above 16 years of age – Bail allowed. (Pardeep Vs State of Haryana) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 167 (P&H)
Offence u/s 363/366/376/506 r/w S.34 – Accused about 16 years of age and in jail for more than five months – It will take a long time before the trial is concluded – Bail allowed. (Deepak Kumar @ Deep Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 413 (P&H)
Juvenile – Offence under sections 376, 452 and 325 – Bail – Refused on ground that it will defeat ends of justice – Material in support thereof not produced by prosecution – Bail to a juvenile can only be declined in exceptional circumstances where it appears to Court that release of the juvenile is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice – No such ground existing in the instant case – Petitioner directed to be released on bail. (Ramesh alias Meshu Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 216 (P&H)
Recovery of currency notes – No specific mark of identification on notes – No mark adverted to in FIR on these notes – Accused not subjected to any physical identification – Held, accused is entitled to be released on bail. (Sushil Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 627 (All.)
Offence u/s 398/401 IPC – Bail – Accused once jumped bail – Now in custody for a period of 4 months – Petitioner allowed bail keeping in view the totality of the circumstances. (Raj Pal Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 591 (P&H)
Bail – Pistol made in England and five cartridges found in possession of accused without any authority or licence – Accused if enlarged on bail could administer threat to witnesses or could tamper with evidence – Court has to consider seriousness of offence and interest of society at large – Nature of offence is one of the basic consideration for grant of bail – Trial Court was justified in rejecting bail application. (Livarsing Tejsingh Vs State of Gujarat) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 546 (Gujarat)
Offence for making preparation for robbery – Accused in custody for 2 years – Bail allowed – It will be seen at the time of trial whether the petitioner alongwith his co-accused was making any conspiracy for committing the robbery or not. (Om Pal Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 75 (P&H)
Bail – Dispute pertaining to money transaction and an amount of Rs.1.10 lacs paid back which was the subject matter of offence – Bail allowed. (Ranjodh Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 804 (P&H)
Accused formed a company and floating money circulation scheme and collecting Rs.12 crores – Release of accused on bail will further encourage him to indulge in same activities – Bail refused. (Jasdeep Singh Bains Vs State of Union Territory, Chandigarh) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 649 (P&H)
Applicant took Rs.25,000/- promising to supply cement by misquoting his name – Complaint lodged after 18 days of taking money – No material to show that the applicant took money from the complainant – Bail allowed. (Sunder Singh Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 196 (Chhattisgarh)
Permission to go abroad and to complete studies – Petitioner facing trial u/s 420 IPC in a complaint case – No intention on part of petitioner not to face prosecution – Petitioner allowed to leave India for completing her studies subject to the conditions that (i) proceedings may continue in absence of petitioner and evidence may also be recorded; (ii) whenever presence of petitioner is required, she will appear in the courts; (iii) that petitioner will furnish personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. (Nidhi Arora Vs Sada Nand) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 612 (P&H)
Bail – Petitioner alleged to have hatched conspiracy for grant of personal loan on basis of forged documents prepared by loanee – Petitioner held, entitled to bail. (Mohanjeet Singh Juneja Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 597 (Rajasthan)
In FIR no allegation of demand of dowry against petitioner – Bail granted. (Rukma Devi Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 127 (Rajasthan)
Juvenile – Bail – Normal rule is to grant bail unless juvenile Board comes to conclusion that by release, such a juvenile would come in contract with known criminals or that his life is likely to be in danger. (Dattatray G.Sankne Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 515 (Bombay)
Juvenile – Aged 15 years – Girl aged 13 years set on fire as she refused to develop love affairs with him and have wrong things with him – Accused not involved in any other crime and residing with his family – His release will not bring him in bad company or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger – Merely because he is alleged to have committed a heinous crime, it cannot be said that his release will defeat the ends of justice – Accused ordered to be released on bail. (Baljinder alias Bantu Vs U.T.Chandigarh) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 332 (P&H)
Juvenile – Bail – Can be refused if juvenile after release on bail is likely to come in association with any known criminal or his release on bail would expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. (Atul Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 635 (P&H)
Juvenile – Bail – Court can refuse bail if parents of juvenile are also criminals either ex-convicts or members of a gang – Bail may also be refused if juvenile repeats the crime. (Atul Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 635 (P&H)
Offence of dacoity and lotting the bus – Accused a Juvenile offender – Bail refused on the ground that if accused is enlarged on bail he is likely to be introduced to hardened criminal gang and is likely to commit such offences. (Anish Vs State of Haryana) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 523 (P&H)
Illegally aborting a child – Accused in jail for 5 months – Bail allowed. (Malkiat Kaur Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 627 (P&H)
Bail – Poppy husk – Recovery of 10 Kg. – Not a commercial quantity – Accused in custody for 17 months – Bail allowed. (Balwinder Singh alias Baljinder Singh alias Jiji Vs State of Punjab) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 705 (P&H)
Bail – Offence under NDPS Act – Accused opted to be searched before Magistrate – However, accused searched in presence of Naib Tehsildar who is not a Magistrate – Recovery was effected on receipt of secret information but information was not reduced to writing and not sent to superior officer as required – Bail allowed. (Balkar Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 503 (P&H)
Opium – Bail – Accused gave option to be searched in presence of Magistrate but searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer – Search not proper and the same is illegal – Bail allowed without commenting on merits. (Puran Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 321 (P&H)
Bail – Power of High Court – When bail is to be granted on merits only then provision of S.37 NDPS Act operate – When bail is to be granted on other circumstances or humanitarian ground like the medical ground, powers of High Court u/s 438 Cr.P.C. are not curtailed – Provision of S.37 NDPS Act does not act as a blanket ban on the powers of the High Court under S.439 of Cr.P.C. (Syed Abdul Ala Vs Narcotic Control Bureau, South Zone, Chennai) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 579 (Karnataka)
Bail – Recovery of 120 grams of charas – Not a commercial quantity – Bail allowed – Provision of S.37 NDPS Act not applicable. (Rajbir Vs State of Haryana) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 442 (P&H)
Bail – Recovery of 61 Kgs. of poppy husk from the plot – No person arrested at the spot – The plot from where the alleged recovery was effected, not abutting the house of the petitioner – Bail allowed. (Gurdev Singh alias Pappu Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 896 (P&H)
Opium – Bail – Accused opted to be searched before Magistrate – Search made before Naib Tehsildar – Naib Tehsildar may be Magistrate for revenue purpose but he cannot be considered to be an Executive Magistrate under the Cr.P.C. or NDPS Act – Bail granted. (Shanker Lal Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 77 (P&H)
Poppy straw – Recovery of 35 Kg. – Accused being house lady – Quantity not commercial quantity – No previous conviction – Reasonable grounds to accept contention that accused has not committed offence and there is no likelihood of engaging herself in similar activity in future – Bail granted. (Padma Mishra Vs State of Uttaranchal) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 138 (Uttaranchal)
Charas – Recovery of 450 gms. – No previous conviction of applicant – Reasonable ground to accept argument that he has not committed offence and no likelihood of engaging himself in similar activity in future – Bail granted. (Zameel Vs State of Uttaranchal) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 524 (Uttaranchal)
Ganja – Recovery of 2.800 Kg. – Applicant in custody since 5.12.2002 – Bail allowed. (Trinath Dadsena Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 285 (Chhattisgarh)
Ganja – Recovery of 5 Kgs. 700 grams from a suitcase – In complaint the colour of suitcase shown as brown whereas in Panchanama it is shown as light grey – Fit case to admit applicant to bail. (Satoranjan Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 134 (M.P
Poppy husk – Recovery of 100 Kgs. – Bail – Sought on the ground that provisions of Ss.50, 52 and 57 not complied with – Bail refused – 100 Kgs. of poppy husk is a commercial quantity – Limitations of S.37 cannot be ignored and it is premature to say whether provisions of Sections 50, 52 and 57 were contravened. (Bhola Singh alias Bhola Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 73 (P&H)
Recovery of 72 kgs. of poppy husk from two persons – At best it can be said that each one of them was in possession of 36 kgs. – This is below the commercial quantity – Bail allowed. (Kala Singh alias Kalu Vs State of Haryana) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 303 (P&H)
Poppy husk – Recovery of 30 Kgs. – Recovery of poppy husk less than 50 Kgs. not “commercial quantity” – S.37 of the Act does not apply to such recoveries – Bail in such cases is governed by S.439 of Cr.P.C. – Bail granted. (Brij Lal Vs State of Haryana) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 6 (P&H)
Corruption case – Bail – Granted on consideration viz (1) Accused in custody for 58 days and not stated that he was required for custodial interrogation to achieve further breakthrough in investigation (2) Not stated by Police that any recovery was to be effected from accused (3) Prosecution made no attempt to make the custodial examination of two other dignatories in the case (4) There was no apprehension of tampering with record as accused was under suspension and files were taken in custody by police. (Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 485 (P&H)
Corruption case – Bail – Non presentation of bail application before Sessions Court/competent Court not a bar for presentation of petition for bail before High Court. (Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 485 (P&H)
Bail – Accused tried to bribe S.P. – Accused in custody for two months – Trial likely to take long time – Bail granted. (Bir Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 296 (P&H)
Bail – Case of prosecution of payment of bribe of Rs.2.80 crores to Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission seeking job for son and daughter – Challan put up but no charge framed for six months as according to public prosecutor further investigation was being conducted – Not stated as to when further investigation will be complete – Thirty four accused already on bail – Bail allowed. (Gurcharan Singh Pherurai Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 450 (P&H)
Bail – Accused prosecuted under POTA – Cognizance of offence taken on the date on which there was no sanction u/s 50 of POTA – Accused is entitled to bail. (Khaja Mohinuddin & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 723 (Bombay)
Anticipatory bail – Main accused already released on bail – No grievous injury attributed to petitioners – Anticipatory bail allowed. (Manbhari Devi & Ors. Vs State) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 501 (Rajasthan)
Bail – Accused in custody since long and offence triable by Magistrate Ist Class – Not a ground for grant of bail – Nature of allegations and the seriousness of the offence is also to be kept in mind by Court while considering application for bail. (N.K.Garg Vs U.T.Chandigarh) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 550 (P&H)
Bail – Among other circumstances Court while granting bail should consider : (1) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (2) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and (3) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. (State of Maharashtra Vs Sitaram Popat Vetal) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 385 (S.C.)
Bail – Applicant himself lodged report of incident with police in presence of independent persons and admitted the guilt – Not a ground to deny bail to accused even in murder case – If applicant belongs to another State, a condition can be imposed to secure his presence at trial – Bail allowed. (Mohammad Asgar Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 805 (Bombay)
Bail – Arrest of accused under Ss.363, 366 and 376 IPC – Age of prosecutrix about 15 years at the relevant time – Except the school certificate, there is no other evidence in relation to the age of the girl and the matter is one of the marginal age – Accused granted bail. (Domeshwar Singh Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 806 (Chhattisgarh)
Bail – Cancellation – Bail can be cancelled when (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vii) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. (Mehboob Dawood Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 560 (S.C.)
Bail – Cancellation – Bail obtained by misleading Court – Bail cancelled. (Arvind Mohan Johari & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 707 (S.C.)
Bail – Cancellation – Bail once granted cannot and ought not to be normally cancelled in a mechanical manner unless there are cogent and overwhelming facts and circumstances on record – Sole ground for cancellation of bail was that bail was granted within 7 days of arrest of accused without taking into consideration relevant facts – No case could be said made out to recall bail. (Smt.Rajbala Vs State & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 870 (Rajasthan)
Bail – Cancellation – Interference with order on merits – Only in exceptional cases where the order granting bail is vitiated by any serious infirmity and in the interest of justice it becomes necessary to interfere with the discretion exercised in granting bail that the order would be interfered with on merits. (State of Gujarat Vs Salimbhai Abdulgaffar Shaikh & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 621 (S.C.)
Bail – Cancellation – Only if person released on bail, misused the bail either running away from the Court or tempering with the evidence or by interfering with the recording of evidence or investigation or in any manner interfering with the administration of justice. (Prithvi Raj Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 356 (Rajasthan)
Bail – Cancellation – Order is very rarely interfered with on merits – Relevant considerations are : whether the accused is trying to tamper with the evidence subsequent to his release on bail or has threatened the witnesses or has committed any other offence while on bail or is trying to adopt dilatory tactics resulting in delay of trial or has absconded or that the offence committed by him has created serious law and order problem – Court has to see as to whether the accused has mis-used the privilege of bail granted to him. (State of Gujarat Vs Salimbhai Abdulgaffar Shaikh & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 621 (S.C.)
Bail – Criminal antecedents – Criminal antecedents are always not determinative of the question whether bail is to be granted, yet their relevance cannot be totally ignored. (State of Maharashtra Vs Sitaram Popat Vetal) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 385 (S.C.)
Bail – Cross case – Accused released on bail in a counter case – Benefit of bail should not be refused to the accused in the other case. (Ashish Pateliya Vs State of Chhattisgarh) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 488 (Chhattisgarh)
Bail – Detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case to be avoided while passing orders on bail application – However, Court should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie case – Exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not necessary – Court dealing with the application for bail is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. (Chaman Lal Vs State of U.P. & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 364 (S.C.)
Bail – Illegal selection of candidates for appointment – Chairman of selection committee an IAS officer who is principal accused already released on bail – Petitioner, Chief Engineer, member of committee – No specific role attributed to him – It is a case of collective responsibility and violation – Petitioner allowed bail. (Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 675 (P&H)
Bail – Murder – Name of accused shown in column 2 in the final report submitted by Police – Petitioner summoned by trial Court by invoking provisions of S.319 Cr.P.C. – Accused in jail for 7 months – Bail allowed without expressing any opinion on merits of case. (Bhagwan Dass @ Bhana Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 614 (P&H)
Bail – Murder case – Name of accused not in FIR – His name brought to light after 70 days of lodging FIR – No direct evidence – Fit case for bail. (Ravi Vas Vs State of Uttaranchal) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 503 (Uttaranchal)
Bail – Murder case – Name of petitioner did not figure in FIR – Petitioner subsequently roped in – Petitioner in custody for 10 months – Challan put up but no witness examined – Bail allowed. (Baljit Singh alias Deepu Vs State of Punjab) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 617 (P&H)
Bail – Opium – Recovery below commercial quantity – Accused not habitual offender – Bail granted. (Shankar Lal Vs State) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 489 (Rajasthan)
Bail – Precedent – Decision given by a superior forum is binding on the subordinate fora on the same issue even in bail matters unless of course, there is a material change in the fact situation calling for a different view being taken. (Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 780 (S.C.)
Bail – Rejection by Sessions Court – High Court while exercising jurisdiction u/s 439 Cr.P.C. is not a Court of appeal or Court of revision but High Court should keep in mind the reasons for rejecting the bail set out in the order of Sessions Court – High Court order should appear that it was conscious of the reasons for rejection of prayer for bail as assigned by the Sessions Court. (Ram Pratap Yadav Vs Mitra Sen Yadav & Anr.) 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 529 (S.C.)
Bail – Triple murder and three others receiving injuries – Petitioner and some ladies threw brick-bats and stones but none was injured – Bail granted to petitioner. (Anil Kumar Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 234 (P&H)
Bail – Unless a person is in custody, an application for bail u/s 439 of the Code is not maintainable. (Nirmal Jeet Kaur Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 377 (S.C.)
Bail – While dealing with bail application Court to consider among other circumstances the factors viz. (1) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (2) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and (3) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. (Chaman Lal Vs State of U.P. & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 364 (S.C.)
Bail application – It is discretion of Court to hear bail application on the same day it is filed or after giving a very short time or give a longer time – Bail application can be heard even without giving notice to public prosecutor where it is not practicable to give notice – Reasons must be recorded for waiving the notice. (Smt.Amarawati & Anr. Vs State of U.P.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 86 (Allahabad)
Bail application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. – It is discretion of Court to decide bail application on the same day or not – It is also discretion of Court to grant interim bail the same day subject to the final decision on the bail application later. (Smt.Amarawati & Anr. Vs State of U.P.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 86 (Allahabad)
Bail in non bailable offence – Considerations – (1) The nature and seriousness of the offence; (2) the character of the evidence; (3) circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (4) a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; (5) reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; (6) the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case. (Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 760 (S.C.)
Bail in non bailable offence – Considerations to weigh are : the nature and seriousness of the offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case. (State of Gujarat Vs Salimbhai Abdulgaffar Shaikh & Ors.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 621 (S.C.)
Cancellation of bail – Murder – Bail granted by High Court without considering the criminal history of the accused, evidence available against them, threats to the life of the complainant/appellant and his family members and likelihood to abscond from the criminal courts of justice and rendering the fair trial impossible – Bail cancelled. (Panchanan Mishra Vs Digambar Mishra) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 842 (S.C.)
Courts having concurrent jurisdiction – Party has right to choose his forum. (Shivasumbramanyam Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 373 (Karnataka)
Dowry death – Sister of husband – She lived separately and her name was not in FIR – Bail granted. (Smt.Neelima Saxena Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 69 (P&H)
FIR lodged in 2002 and allegation pertain to the years 1995 to 2000 when petitioner was working as Sarpanch – Bail allowed. (Om Pal Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 510 (P&H)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.307, 365, 342, 323, 148 and 149 – Bail – Allegation against A1 that he had given fist blows on the person of injured and A2 had caused dang blows – Injuries simple in nature – Both the petitioners in custody since December 2004 – Bail allowed. (Bhani Ram & Ors. Vs The State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 373 (P&H)
Most of the dowry articles returned by the petitioners and challan also filed – Bail allowed. (Roshni Devi Vs State of Haryana) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 60 (P&H)
Murder – Bail – Accused in custody for 21 months – Trial likely to take some time – One of the co-accused already on bail – Bail allowed. (Kuldeep Vs State of Haryana) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 275 (P&H)
Offence u/ss 498-A, 306 & 114 IPC against father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased – Allegations of constant harassment and torture in FIR lodged by father of deceased when deceased was not able to conceive – Delay of two days in lodging FIR and husband being excluded is not a ground for bail – Applicants aged 75 years and 65 years also not a ground for bail in a serious crime – Application dismissed. (Hirbai @ Hanifaben Vs State of Gujarat) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 151 (Gujarat)
Permission to go abroad – Bail granted in an offence u/ss 406/420/494/495 IPC – Petitioner granted bail by trial Court – Petitioner allowed to go abroad for three months subject to furnishing two sureties to the extent of 2 lacs each. (Harpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 538 (P&H)
Poppy husk – Recovery of 35 Kg. – Police party used a jeep at the time of recovery – Nothing in the police file to show that the vehicle which was with the police party was requisitioned or a private vehicle was being used as a Vagar – This prima facie shows false implication of the petitioner – Bail granted. (Randhir Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 161 (P&H)
Successive bail applications – Permissible if there is change in fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete – This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application. (Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 780 (S.C.)
While considering bail application, Court should mainly consider two aspects, firstly seriousness of the offence and the interest of the society at large. (Livarsing Tejsingh Vs State of Gujarat) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 546 (Gujarat)
Juvenile – Bail – Cancellation – Juvenile a student of 10th std. – No new grounds made out for cancellation of bail – Juvenile not alleged to have tampered with the evidence or is likely to tamper with the evidence – Investigation not yet over – No case made out for cancellation of bail. (Dattatray G.Sankne Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 515 (Bombay)
Recovery of 130 grams of Heroin – Matter exclusively triable by Special Court – Additional District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain bail application and grant bail. (The State of Mizoram Vs Zoliana) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 108 (Gauhati)
Anticipatory bail – Cancellation – High Court granted anticipatory bail on condition that appellant shall stay for one week in Chennai and shall report at police station every day – During one week period appellant alleged to have given threat to a prosecution witness and High Court cancelled bail – Complaint of alleged threat lodged after two days of alleged threat – It creates authenticity of complaint – Held, High Court not justified in cancelling the bail. (Raj Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs Kundan Jain & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 169 (S.C.)
Bail – Cancellation – Some of the grounds on which bail can be cancelled are (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity; (ii) interferes with the course of investigation; (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence of witnesses; (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation; (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country; (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going under ground for becoming unavailable to the investigating agency; (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety. (State of Punjab Vs Deepak Gakhar alias Deepak Arora) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 685 (P&H)
Bail – Cancellation – “Second bail application” mentioned whereas infact application for anticipatory bail was the third application – Not a ground for cancellation of bail. (Mahesh Gupta Vs NCT of Delhi & Anr.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 517 (Delhi)
Bail – Cancellation – Accused talking of threats to life of complainant and his family – Not a ground to cancel bail – There was empty threat not translated into action – No physical harm done – Bail once granted can only be cancelled on very cogent grounds. (Kanwaljit Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 195 (P&H)
– Bail – Cancellation – Bail can be cancelled only on the ground of intimidation. (Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 164 (S.C.)
Bail – Cancellation – Bribe case – Petition of State seeking cancellation of bail dismissed as no recovery was to be effected from accused persons and that there is no material to show that accused were likely to misuse concession of bail. (State of Punjab Vs Deepak Gakhar alias Deepak Arora) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 685 (P&H)
Bail – Cancellation – Considerations for grant of bail and cancellation of bail stand on different footings. (Mehboob Dawood Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 560 (S.C.)
Bail – Cancellation – Court must decide on the preponderance of probabilities, that the material so placed before the Court should render the version as probable – Approver withdrew his complaint that he was threatened by accused – Complaint of another witness that his son was beaten by some unknown persons is also vague – Order of cancellation of bail is unsustainable. (Justin D’cunha Vs State) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 103 (Bombay)
Bail – Cancellation – Court which granted bail to hear application for cancellation of bail – This is a desirable course – If party makes a grievance that such a course is not followed then he has to indicate as to in what manner he was in prejudice by the deviation. (Mehboob Dawood Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 560 (S.C.)
Bail – Cancellation of Bail – Misuse – Accused entering in a conspiracy and getting one ‘R’ assaulted – ‘R’ suffering two grievous injuries – Accused prima facie misused the liberty – Bail cancelled. (Mandata Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 430 (S.C.)
Bail – Granted in appeal – Cancellation – Involvement of accused in three criminal cases – Offences in which accused was alleged to be involved not of serious nature – Circumstances could not be said overwhelming to call for cancellation of bail. (State by Inspector of Police Vs Sivakumar) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 266 (Madras)
Accused under arrest – Challan put up when investigation was still going on – Requirement of S.173(1) and (2) Cr.P.C. is that report should be submitted after investigation is complete – Accused released on bail. (Surinder Joshi Vs State of Punjab) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 505 (P&H)
Second bail application after filing of charge sheet – Court cannot refuse to enter into merits of the case by holding that filing of chargesheet is not a substantive change of circumstances – Court is obliged to consider merits of the case afresh by allowing the applicant to argue on the basis of documents supplied to accused with the chargesheet as required under S.207 Cr.P.C. (Laxman Irappa Hatti & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 46 (Bombay)
Murder – Bail – Conspiracy to commit murder – No prima facie evidence brought to notice of Court except retracted confession of accused – Bail allowed. (Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 760 (S.C.)
Bail – Cancellation – On ground that accused obtained bail by misrepresentation or suppression of facts – Bail application should be placed before same Judge who granted bail – Cancellation of bail by other Judge of High Court, not proper. (Harjeet Singh Vs State of Punjab) AIR 2002 S.C. 281
Bail – Cancellation – Accused granted bail in a rape case – After grant of bail accused again tried to commit the same offence – Bail cancelled – Held, it is misuse of bail – An accused who has been granted bail, is not to indulge in commission of an offence similar to the one of which he is accused – Such a condition is implicit in every bail order. (Ravi Dutt Vs State of Haryana & Ors.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 556 (P&H)
Anticipatory bail granted for four weeks – During this period respondent applied for regular bail – Bail application rejected – Sessions Court also declined regular bail – Bail application moved before High Court – During pendency of regular bail application ad-interim anticipatory bail allowed – For making an application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. person has to be in custody – Protection given to respondent by High Court while application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. is pending is unsustainable. (Nirmal Jeet Kaur Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 377 (S.C.)
Accused on bail – Accused jumped the bail – Surety failed to produce accused inspite of time sought by him – Surety imposed with penalty of Rs.7,000/- – Held, penalty is justified. (Nanak Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 720 (P&H)
Passport – Accused on bail – Accused employed in Australia – Accused if remains in India till conclusion of trial he will be without job – Release of passport subjection to conditions that (i) he shall deposit Rs.1 lakh in trial Court (ii) he shall mark his attendance on first Sunday of every alternate month at office of Indian High Commission in Australia and (iii) he shall not shift himself from Australia to any other country without permission of trial Court. (Brijesh Singh & Anr. Vs State) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 210 (Karnataka)
Bond – Forfeiture – Before issuance of show cause notice to surety, Magistrate to satisfy himself that there is a prima facie material for such forfeiture of bond and before forfeiture and issue of distress warrant, an opportunity should be given to the surety. (Kanta Theeng Vs The State of Sikkim) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 725 (Sikkim)
Bond – Forfeiture – Court forfeiting the surety cannot remit or order part payment of the penalty after imposing such penalty at any later stage. (Jameela Vs State of Kerala) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 397 (Kerala)
Accused on bail – Accused absented – No satisfactory explanation for absence – Bail bond cancelled – Accused directed to pay penalty of Rs.20,000/-. (Dharambir & Anr. Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 524 (P&H)
Vehicle involved in offence under NDPS Act – Vehicle given to owner on Sapurdari – Provision of S.451 Cr.P.C. will apply. (Gurdev Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 81 (P&H)
Truck – Interim custody – Truck seized while transporting poppy straw – Offence u/s 8/15 NDPS registered against persons in possession of poppy straw – Even in absence of title the seized vehicle can be released in favour of the person, from whose possession it was seized, if he is not accused of the offence. (Kulvinder Kaur Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 903 (Rajasthan)
Illicit liquor – Transportation in a vehicle belonging to wife of accused – Three other cases under Excise Act also pending against accused – Said vehicle not involved in those cases – Vehicle released to wife on superdari – If vehicle remains in police custody during trial it is likely to get damaged without any useful purpose being served. (Sabnam Vs NCT of Delhi) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 282 (Delhi)
Scope – Power to be exercised is of summary nature which does not adjudicate upon civil rights of the parties – However, order for the custody of property to contain reasons on prima facie finding of ownership to be recorded after hearing both the parties in due compliance of the principles of natural justice. (Nafe Singh Vs Devender Kumar) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 588 (P&H)
Currency notes seized in a Gambling offence – Court has power to give interim custody – However, simply because currency notes would fetch interest is no ground to release the property. (Chandu Chaitram Aswani Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 86 (Bombay)
Gold and silver articles – Interim custody – Given on condition that status quo of property should be maintained without altering their pattern, design and complexion pending conclusion of trial – Conditions not fair when there is no prospect of trial concluding within reasonable time – Taking of indemnity bond for value of property and of photographs for use as secondary evidence, held, would be sufficient. (Prabhakar Vaman Pishe Vs State) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 443 (Karnataka)
Offence under Forest Act and Wild Life Protection Act – Truck seized – Truck of applicant No.1 financed by applicant No.2 – Interim custody of vehicle – Interim arrangement is only temporary and main object is to protect and preserve the property pending trial – Both petitioners directed to move fresh application before Magistrate who shall consider release of vehicle pending disposal of the case. (Gurnam Singh Vs State of Uttaranchal & Anr.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 260 (Uttaranchal)
Sapurdari – By forging documents accused got tractor transferred in his name – FIR u/ss 467, 471 & 420 IPC – Tractor ordered to be given on Sapurdari to its owner. (Nagender Singh Vs Jagjeevan Singh) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 300 (P&H)
Sapurdari – Purchase of vehicle under hire purchase agreement – Hirer made default in payment of instalments to financier – Vehicle taken in custody by police in a criminal case from hirer – Held, financier is absolute owner and is entitled to sapurdari of vehicle because of default committed by hirer. (M/s.Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. Vs Ramesh Kumar) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 69 (P&H)
Sapurdari – Vehicle involved in Forest offence – Interim release of vehicle – Release of vehicle during pendency of proceedings is permissible and that too upon a minimum condition of furnishing of bank guarantee – However, delay in disposal of criminal case is not a ground by itself to release the vehicle on Sapurdari. (Section Forestor & Anr. Vs Mansur Ali Khan) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 227 (S.C.)
Superdari – Vehicle – Agreement to sell – Vehicle not yet transferred in the name of purchaser – Agreement to sell disputed by petitioner – Superdari be given to petitioner in whose name vehicle is registered. (Nafe Singh Vs Devender Kumar) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 588 (P&H)
Truck – Release on Sapurdari – Cannot be refused to registered owner on the ground that truck owner has not produced the driver who is still absconding – Truck ordered to be released to registered owner on certain conditions. (Ishtiyaq Ahmed Vs State of Uttar Pradesh) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 293 (All.)
Truck – Sapurdari – Truck purchased by taking loan from financier – Owner selling truck without repaying entire loan – Truck taken in custody by police – Held, financier is entitled to interim custody – No matter name of owner was entered in Registration Book – He does not become absolute owner. (Satpalsingh Ajitsingh Bajaj Vs Kalyani Trading Co.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 504 (Guj.)
Truck – Sapurdari – Truck purchased by taking loan from financier – Truck seized by police – Financier is entitled to interim custody, if entire loan amount is not repaid. (Satpalsingh Ajitsingh Bajaj Vs Kalyani Trading Co.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 504 (Guj.)
Vehicle seized by Forest Department/Police in an offence under Forest Act can be released in interim custody. (Gurnam Singh Vs State of Uttaranchal & Anr.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 260 (Uttaranchal)
Vehicle – Superdari – Be given to the owner or an ostensible owner – Ownership is determined in whose name vehicle stands registered. (Nafe Singh Vs Devender Kumar) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 588 (P&H)
‘Superdigi’ – Custody of tractor – ‘R’ purchased tractor but his name in registration certificate cancelled on technical reasons – Accused not at all concerned with tractor – Custody of tractor rightly given on superdiginama to ‘R’. (Man Singh Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 290 (Rajasthan)
Case property – Interim release – Court must give proper and adequate reasons for returning such property by way of interim custody. (Chandu Chaitram Aswani Vs State of Maharashtra) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 86 (Bombay)
Document – It is property within meaning of S.451 – Direction of trial Court to I.O. to return original documents after retaining attested copies thereof – Proper. (State of Rajasthan Vs Pawan Kumar Goyal) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 179 (Rajasthan)
Supurdagi – Offence under NDPS Act – Seizure of vehicle – Provisions of NDPS Act are not inconsistent with provisions of Ss.451 and 457 Cr.P.C. – Vehicle ordered to be given on supurdagi to its registered owner, on usual conditions. (Sajjan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 545 (Rajasthan)
Theft of Motorcycle – Complainant erstwhile owner of vehicle and accused transferee of said vehicle – Vehicle brought to police station and seized from possession of accused claiming to be its transferee and owner – Accused entitled to interim custody of Motor cycle on execution of supratnama. (Milind Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 139 (Bombay)
Supardigi – Truck on hire purchase with purchaser – Financier taking possession of truck – FIR by purchaser – No instalments due – Financier not certain as to how much amount is still due on various heads of interest and expenses – Financier if aggrieved should approach Civil Court – Magistrate has no jurisdiction to go into the question of title – Purchaser wrongly deprived of possession of vehicle – Vehicle ordered to be delivered to purchaser on Supardiginama. (Suresh Kumar Puranmal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 311 (Rajasthan)
Revolver deposited with arms dealer who unauthorisedly sold the same to third party – Proceedings for criminal breach of trust instituted – Seizure of revolver from third party – Death of arms dealer during pendency of trial and consequent abatement of criminal proceedings – Held, on abatement of criminal proceedings revolver has to be restored to its owner who has better title that third party who purchased it for Rs.5,000 only from accused being fully aware that revolver is worth more than Rs.45,000 and that accused had no title or authority to sell it. (Basettappa Fakirappa Kadagad Vs State of Karnataka & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 242 (Karnataka)
Acquittal of accused – Return of articles – Court has discretion in the matter to return the item to the person from whose possession it was taken – Case diary statement if found reliable can be acted upon – Ban in S.162 Cr.P.C. does not apply to a summons enquiry under S.452 – Question of possession and right of possession alone is relevant – Ownership and title are matters for decision by competent Civil Court in case of dispute and an order u/s 452 does not stand in the way of such decision by competent Civil Court, as, such order is subject to the decision by a competent Civil Court. (Puthiyadathu Kavu Devaswom Temple Committee Vs Manoharan) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 405 (KERALA)
Seized goods – Return of – Melted gold – House breaking and theft – Melted gold seized from third person consequent upon statement of accused – Melted gold can be returned if there is direct link between same and gold ornaments stolen – When melted gold is 400 grams and ornaments were 900 grams and person from whom melted gold is seized is licensed dealer in gold and silver and is not made co-accused in case and tried for being dealer in stolen goods, no linkage can be said to have been established between melted gold seized and gold ornaments stolen – Where person from whom melted gold seized is not a dealer in stolen goods and source of his possession is not traced to theft, he is entitled to be restored with melted gold seized from him. (Thamanna Shivalingappa Teli Vs State of Karnataka & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 579 (Karnataka)
Tractor – Seized from petitioner – Petitioner purchased the same but registration not got transferred in his name – No tax paid by the petitioner – Complaint of petitioner regarding same vehicle pending in Court – No explanation how tractor came into possession of petitioner – Custody of tractor rightly handed over to its registered owner. (Munna Lal Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 539 (Rajasthan)
Sliver bangles – Dumped under Neem tree recovered at instance of accused – Accused amputated hands and feet of deceased and removed bangles – Sessions Judge held husband of deceased to be entitled to those bangles – Accused though acquitted yet accused not being entitled to bangles, no question of return of bangles to accused or to appellants who claim only pawnees and as such may seek remedy if any, against accused – Bangles held rightly given to husband of deceased. (Ganglya @ Gangaram & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 337 (Rajasthan)
Theft – Recovery of money – Acquittal of offence u/s 379 IPC – Accused not claiming money as his own – Held, amount rightly refused to be returned to accused. (Bheema Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 163 (Rajasthan)
Possession – Restoration – Conviction for dispossessing a person by criminal force – Order for restoration of possession can be passed within one month of order of conviction. (Amar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 26 (Rajasthan)
Seizure of vehicle for offence committed under Wild Life (Protection) Act – Held, provisions of Forest Act not applicable in deciding custody of vehicle. (State of Maharashtra Vs Gajanan Dajiba Jambhulkar) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 628 (Bom.)
Bank accounts – Seizure of such accounts and direction to stop their operation – Bank operation allowed with a direction that petitioner will not withdraw the amounts lying in deposit till the date of their seizure which shall be kept in term deposit. (Sabitri Jagadev Vs State of Orissa (Vigilance)) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 56 (Orissa)
Offence committed under Wild Life Act – Seizure of jeep – Jeep released on supratnama – Order held to be illegal – Mere fact that three years had passed since release of vehicle is no ground to clothe otherwise illegal order with cloak of legality – Order quashed and seizure of jeep ordered. (State of Maharashtra Vs Gajanan Dajiba Jambhulkar) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 628 (Bom.)
Jeep – Custody – Given to registered owner – Earlier possession of jeep by petitioner under hire purchase become irrelevant. (Bhawani Singh Vs The State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 125 (Rajasthan)
Seizure of building or immovable property for preserving evidence for future local inspection for the purpose of appreciating evidence – Endeavour of the trial court should always be to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible so that local inspection is made as early as possible in order to avoid the property being ruined on account of non-user, non-maintenance and non-attendance. (Ansal Theatres and Clubotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs State & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 391 (Delhi)
Vehicle seized in connection with offence under NDPS Act – Vehicle lying at Police station exposed to sun and rain – No use to keep the seized vehicle – No fruitful purpose will be served by detaining the vehicle for a prolonged period – Condition of the vehicle likely to deteriorate day to day affecting the cost of vehicle – Interim release of vehicle allowed on furnishing of cash security and property security – Before handing over possession of the seized vehicle, photographs of the vehicle and the photograph of the registered owner be taken with a further direction to keep the vehicle in running condition. (Balakrushna Dash Vs State of Orissa) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 669 (Orissa)
“Failure of justice” – Is too pliable or facile an expression, which could be fitted in any situation of a case – Criminal Court, particularly the superior Court should make a close examination to ascertain whether there was really a failure of justice or it is only a camouflage. (State by Police Inspector Vs T.Venkatesh Murthy) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 107 (S.C.)
Non framing of charge – Does not vitiate the conviction if no prejudice is caused thereby to the accused. (Lallan Rai & Ors. Vs State of Bihar) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 48 (S.C.) : 2003(1) Apex Court Judgments 438 (S.C.)
Charge – Failure of Justice – Conviction for offence other than charged – Court has to see whether conviction would result in failure of Justice – Whether accused was aware of basic ingredients of offence – Whether facts were explained to him and he got a fair chance to defend him – Are important aspects to be seen as to judge whether failure of justice has occasioned. (Dalbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. ) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 682 (S.C.)
Sample taken in 1993 and complaint filed in 1998 – Maximum sentence provided for the offence 3 years – Complaint barred by limitation – There was not even a whisper as to the cause of delay – Delay in prosecution has to be condoned prior to taking cognizance of the offence – Plea of limitation can be raised at any time during the trial – As complaint is barred by limitation as such proceedings quashed. (Macleod Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 242 (Rajasthan)Criminal breach of trust – Limitation – Is a continuing offence which continues until the property is restored to its true owner. (Mastan Singh Vs Jaswinder Singh Zora Singh Sandhu) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 05 (P&H)
Order of reinstatement – Non compliance – It is a continuing offence – Embargo placed under S.468 Cr.P.C. in the matter of limitation is not applicable. (Management of M/s Peerless General Finance Vs Jugal Kishore) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 611 (Orissa)
Offence under Insecticides Act – Punishment prescribed is two years under S.29(1) – Limitation to file complaint is 3 years – Complaint filed after four years – Complaint and summoning order quashed. (M/s.Kheti Sewa Centre, Ludhiana Vs State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 665 (P&H)
Limitation – Date to be reckoned for the purpose of computing limitation is the date on which the complaint is filed and not the date on which the magisterial act of taking cognizance manifests u/s 204 of the Code. (George Mathew Vs Poulose Varkey) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 229 (Kerala)
Limitation – No period of limitation is prescribed for an offence for which punishment prescribed is more than three years. (Karnail Singh Vs State of Haryana) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 44 (P&H)
Limitation – Starting point – Date of commission of offence has to be taken into consideration while deciding the period of limitation. (O.R.Alavi Vs Government of A.P. through P.P) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 415 (A.P.)
Market fee – Evasion – Petitioner agreed to make payment – Cheque issued – Cheque dishonoured – Limitation – Starts to run not from the date when offence was committed but from the date when there was breach of promise i.e. dishonour of cheque. (Mysore Fruit Products Limited, Bangalore & Ors. Vs Fruits and Vegetables (SPL.) Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Bangalore) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 191 (Karnataka)
Offence u/s 498-A, 406 IPC – Limitation – Last act of cruelty is the starting point of limitation. (Ramesh & Ors. Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 440 (S.C.)
Offence u/s 211 Companies Act – Punishment prescribed S.I. for six months or fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or both – Prosecution to be lodged within one year from the date of knowledge – Prosecution having been lodged beyond period of one year, cognizance of offences and issuance of process quashed. (M/s NALCO & Ors. Vs Registrar of Companies & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 31 (Orissa)
Limitation – Complaint filed within limitation but cognizance taken after period of limitation – Held, limitation prescribed is only for the filing of the complaint or initiation of the prosecution and not for taking cognizance. (Bharat Damodar Kale & Anr. Vs State of A.P.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 705 (S.C.) : 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 186 (S.C.)
Complaint filed beyond period of limitation – Power of Court to extend period of limitation can be exercised when Court is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice – Summoning order not even referred to Ss.468 or 473 Cr.P.C. – High Court clearly erred in holding that complaint was not hit by limitation – Complaint quashed. (M/s.Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Md.Sharaful Haque) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 541 (S.C.)
Delay – Condonation – Condonation of delay after taking cognizance of offence is not valid – Delay has to be condoned before taking cognizance of offence. (Amar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 349 (P&H)
Cognizance taken after expiry of period of limitation – Period of limitation not extended or condoned on the date of taking cognizance – Proceedings quashed as delay condoned after taking cognizance. (Dara Singh & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 521 (Rajasthan)
Provident Fund – Non payment of contribution – Prosecution – Limitation – Non payment of contributions being continuing offence i.e. offence giving rise to fresh offence de die in diem, so long as omission made penal by statute is not rectified as such does not attract any limitation for prosecution. (M.R.Joseph Vs John Menezes) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 86 (Karnataka)
Limitation – Period commences either from the date of offence or from the date when the offence is detected – While computing the period of limitation, time taken during which the case was diligently prosecuted in another Court or in appeal or in revision against the offender is to be excluded – Period for obtaining consent or sanction of Government or any other authority is also to be excluded. (Bharat Damodar Kale & Anr. Vs State of A.P.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 186 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 705 (S.C.)
Return of complaint by Court having no territorial jurisdiction to be presented before proper Court – Period mentioned for representation of complaint – Period of pendency of complaint to be excluded – Period from return of complaint to representation of complaint cannot be condoned as there is no provision either in Cr.P.C. or Limitation Act. (Rayala Sima Agro Enterprises & Ors. Vs Gujarat Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 460 (A.P.)
Offence u/s 498-A, 406 IPC – Limitation – Delayed complaints – Court to construe liberally S.473 Cr.P.C. in favour of wife who is subjected to cruelty, if on the facts and in the circumstances of the case it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice – When conduct of accused is such that applying the rule of limitation will give an unfair advantage to him or result in miscarriage of justice, the Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of period of limitation in the interests of justice. (1999(4) SCC 690) followed. (Ramesh & Ors. Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 504 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 440 (S.C.)
Cruelty and misappropriate of dowry articles – Limitation – Complaint filed after limitation – By virtue of provision of S.473 Cr.P.C. Court is competent to take cognizance even after the period of limitation – Moreso offence u/s 498-A IPC is a continuous offence. (Hussan Lal Vs State of Punjab) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 646 (P&H)
Delay – Cannot be condoned – S.473 Cr.P.C. & S.5 Limitation Act not applicable. (Rayala Sima Agro Enterprises & Ors. Vs Gujarat Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 460 (A.P.)
Delay – Condonation – Delay to be condoned only when it is sufficiently explained and to do substantial justice – Delay cannot be condoned as a matter of routine without sufficient reasons – When nature of offence is trivial and there is enormous delay, Court not to exercise its power u/s 473 Cr.P.C. to condone the delay – Once the discretionary power is properly exercised, High Court will be reluctant to interfere in the matter. (J.Kamala & Ors. Vs Drug Inspector & Anr.) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 249 (Kerala)
Delay – Condonation – Decision on condonation of delay can only be taken before taking cognizance of offence. (Nagar Palika, Haldwani Vs Jogendra Singh Anand alias Mangery) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 498 (Uttaranchal)
Delay – Condonation – Exercise of discretion in condoning delay but not on relevant consideration cannot be sustained. (Ramesh Chandra Sinha & Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 116 (S.C.) : 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 92 (S.C.)
Delay – Satisfaction of Court regarding proper explanation given for the delay must precede taking cognizance of the offence – Court will be justified in taking cognizance of the offence only if the delay is properly explained and the Court comes to the conclusion that the explanation given for the delay is sufficient for condoning the same. (Eciyo Coconut Oils Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Kerala) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 459 (Kerala)
Electricity – Theft – Delay of four years in filing charge sheet – Delay condoned without affording opportunity to accused – Held, right accrued to accused cannot be taken away without giving him an opportunity of hearing. (Sanjay Gupta & Ors. Vs State & Anr.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 540 (Delhi)
Extension of period of limitation – Court can extend period of limitation if delay is properly explained or it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice. (Shri Adarsh Kumar Vs Junior Engineer, Office of the Legal Assistant, Housing Urban Department) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 158 (P&H)
Limitation – Condonation of delay – Court taking cognizance can extend the period of limitation where a proper and satisfactory explanation of the delay is available and where the Court taking cognizance finds that it would be in the interest of justice. (Kishanchand Lilaram Bajaj Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 9 (Bombay)
Anonymous letter containing intimidating language received by Magistrate – Petitioner suspected to have written the letter – Letter sent to police for registration of a case – Case registered u/s 503 and 507 IPC – Magistrate passed remand order – Defacto complainant in the case was Magistrate himself – Application moved by accused for release u/s 59 Cr.P.C. dismissed by Magistrate – Held, order of remand and order dismissing application u/s 59 Cr.P.C. is in utter violation of S.479 Cr.P.C. and the same set aside. (J.Vanaraj Vs State) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 443 (Madras)
Transfer of convict from Central Jail to District Jail enabling convict’s family to visit convict – Transfer ordered on humanitarian consideration for three months – For permanent order of transfer, convict to apply to Director General Prisons. (Mangu Khan & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 271 (Raj.)
Charge framed u/s 39 Electricity Act – Tampering of meter – No allegation that any artificial means has been used for abstraction of the electricity by the petitioner for consumption and use – FIR quashed. (Pawan Kumar Vs The State of Haryana) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 163 (P&H)
Offence by company – Complaint against company through its Managing Director – Company could not be served with summons – Non bailable warrants against Managing Director cannot be issued as Managing Director is not one of the accused. (V.K.Garg Vs State of Punjab) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 651 (P&H)
Essential ingredients of offence u/s 147 completely missing – Prosecution case not inspiring any confidence in view of the fact that the complainant has neither sustained any injury nor specific overtact has been assigned to the petitioners – Proceedings quashed. (Ganpatlal & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 647 (Rajasthan)
Harbouring of offender – Accused came to his house after committing an offence – Mother of accused not knowing the commission of offence by accused – No offence of harbouring of offender is made out. (Rajbala Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 537 (P&H)
Deposits taken and post dated cheques issued when applicant was Director of the Company – Company closing office and fled away – Applicant resigned from directorship subsequently – Held, by resigning subsequently applicant is not absolved of responsibility – Going of company into liquidation also does not absolve director/applicant of his criminal liability – No ground to quash criminal proceedings. (Pran Murgai Vs State of U.P.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 30 (All.)
Hypothecation of machinery for taking loan – Accused removing machinery and stock without making repayment – No criminal offence under Ss.420, 406 IPC is made out – FIR quashed. (M/s.Deva Disc and Tiller, Hissar Vs Haryana Financial Corp.) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 74 (P&H)
Finance company inviting public to invest their money in company and subsequently cheating depositors by not paying interest and not refunding deposits – All Directors of company, having enjoyed fruits of cheating, cannot be permitted to plead that they were not concerned with collection of deposits – No case for quashing the proceedings. (Farooq Dadabhai & Anr. Vs State) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 138 (Karnataka)
Unmarried sisters and brother – It is not believable that they would be entrusted with the dowry articles separately – There is tendency to involve all the relatives of husband when relations between husband and wife are strained – FIR against unmarried sisters and brother of husband quashed. (Anita & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 411 (P&H)
Offence of cheating – Failure of complainant to get any interim or final relief in Consumer Redressal Forum and Civil Court – Not a ground to quash the complaint – Scope and jurisdiction us/ 190 read with S.204 Cr.P.C. is distinctly different than that of a civil remedy – Prayer for quashing of the complaint is to be considered on the basis of the materials which exist on record i.e. the complaint and the statement of the complainant. (M.D. M/s Tata Finance Ltd. Vs M/s.Sanjay Agency) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 543 (ORISSA)
Cognizance u/s 494 IPC – Absence of complaint and non compliance of provisions of S.198 IPC – Order of cognizance set aside. (Simachal Mishra Vs State of Orissa) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 78 (Orissa)
Married sister of husband – Allegation in FIR that on some occasions, she directed complainant to wash W.C. and that she used to abuse her and used to pass remarks such as “even if you have got much jewellery, you are our slave” and that she made wrong imputations to provoke her husband and would warn her that nobody could do anything to her family – Held, all these allegations, even if true, do not amount to harassment or unlawful demand for any property or valuable security – At the most this amounts to insulting and making derogatory remarks and behaving rudely – Bald allegations suggest the anxiety to rope in relations of husband – Proceedings against sister of husband quashed. (Ramesh & Ors. Vs State of Tamil Nadu) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 440 (S.C.)
Quashing of proceedings – Matrimonial dispute – Compromise – Parties amicably settled their all disputes – No grievance against each other – Genuine settlement arrived at between parties who are none else than husband and wife – Criminal Proceedings pending against husband quashed. (Nasrudin & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 470 (Rajasthan)
Offence u/s 498-A, 304-B, 201/34 – Cognizance taken by Magistrate – Petition to quash proceedings against petitioner – Case against other accused except husband of victim ended in acquittal – Statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and depositions before Court and judgment of acquittal not showing involvement of petitioner in complicity of crime – Fit case to interfere with order taking cognizance as it amounts to abuse of process of Court. (Nilu @ Pratap Kumar Mohaptra Vs State of Orissa) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 922 (Orissa)
Cruelty to wife – Complaint against husband, parents and five sisters – Vague allegations against sisters – Proceedings against sisters quashed. (Harjinder Kaur & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 445 (P&H)
Private complaint – Offence u/s 498-A and 506 IPC – Facts revealing that it was a matrimonial dispute and complaint appeared to be an afterthought and actuated with mala fide – Proceedings quashed. (Manmatha Kumar Jena Vs Smt.Sanjukta Jena) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 613 (Orissa)
Allegation made in complaint even if accepted on its face value not disclosing an offence – Proceedings quashed. (Vijendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 609 (Rajasthan)
Complaint u/s 191 registered in 1983 and charge framed in 1993 – Recording of evidence not commenced even after lapse of 18 years – Proceedings in complaint case quashed. (Madhukar Vishwanath Sonawane Vs State of Maharashtra) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 238 (Bombay)
Income-tax return – Concealment of income – Penalty imposed and criminal complaint filed – Penalty quashed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on a finding that there is no concealment of income by the assessee – Prosecution cannot be sustained in view of the order passed by the Tribunal – Criminal proceedings quashed. (M/s Ajay Tent House & Ors. Vs Income Tax Officer) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 227 (P&H)
Name of petitioner (mother of accused) not in FIR – No other evidence to connect her with offence – Criminal proceedings against her quashed. (Rajbala Vs State of Haryana) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 537 (P&H)
Exoneration from departmental proceedings – Has hardly any material bearing on the case at this stage and cannot come to his aid now – When assault is clearly made out Magistrate is legally justified in issuing process – In deciding the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the determining factor shall be the allegations made in the complaint – It need not stand the scrutiny of the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt or that of genuineness on the basis of unimpeachable evidence a trial of the case only admits of. (Tapan Kumar Bhattacharjee Vs Bijan Kumar Bose & Anr.) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 558 (Calcutta)
Offence u/s 326 IPC – High Court can allow compromise even in non compoundable offence – Parties co-villagers and occurrence took place in a spur of moment – No prior enmity between the parties – After the occurrence, parties are living peacefully – Parties allowed to compound the offence. (Sharanjit Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 224 (P&H)
Agreement to sell – Consideration amount of Rs.7,25,000/- alleged to be taken away by deceitful means and sale deed not executed – Neither possession of disputed land delivered nor process of registry completed – It cannot be said that this is purely a civil dispute – Not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction to quash the FIR. (Haji Abdul Mazid Vs State of Rajasthan) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 301 (Raj.)
Agreement to install rice plant – 75% work completed – Remaining work not done for want of payment – Dispute is of civil nature – No offence u/s 420 IPC is made out – Charge sheet and criminal proceedings quashed. (Sardar Amrik Singh Vs State of U.P.) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 398 (Allahabad) Agreement to sell – Non disclosure of certain material facts at the time of execution of agreement – Offence u/s 420 IPC is prima facie made out – Petition to quash complaint dismissed. (Sandeep Goyal Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 586 (Rajasthan)
Offence u/s 498-A IPC – Parties compromising and divorcing each other and living separately – Offence is not compoundable – However, proceedings quashed so that parties may live in peace and further litigation and bitterness may not continue between them. (Param Jeet & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 678 (Rajasthan)
“Streedhan” property said to have been given which is not the expectation of the accused is nothing but a dowry – Demand of dowry for expansion of business was the main circumstance to subject the victim to cruelty – Evidence collected during investigation showed that petitioners, husband and both parents-in-law of victim were subjecting victim to cruelty in respect of Streedhan property and also further demand of dowry – Allegations prima facie show offence committed by accused u/s 498-A IPC. (D.Surender Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 80 (A.P.)
Alteration in date of cheque to revalidate it – Whether it was with consent of drawer or not? – It is a question of fact which has to be established on evidence during trial – Not a ground for quashing the complaint. (Veera Exports Vs T.Kalavathy) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.)
Dishonour of cheque – Complaint – Notice – Sufficient of service of notice – Question is to be decided on basis of evidence led during trial and not at initial stage – Proceedings cannot be quashed on ground of insufficiency of service of notice, when question is yet to be decided by trial Court. (Fakirappa Vs Shiddalingappa & Anr.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 689 (Kant.)
Dishonour of cheque – Prosecution proceedings not to be quashed at initial stage if uncontroverted allegations in complaint and evidence recorded at the preliminary stage of enquiry prima facie bring out the case within the ambit of S.138 of the Act. (Shakti Bhakoo Vs Varun Khemka) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 237 (P&H)
Public servant – Possession of wealth disproportionate to known sources of income – Case registered on 4.2.1994 – Charge sheet filed on 23.3.2001 – Public servant retired on 31.1.2000 on attaining age of superannuation – No explanation given by prosecution for inordinate delay of over seven years – Proceedings quashed. (P.A.Vijayan Vs State of Karnataka) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 393 (Karnataka)
Embezzlement – Personal malice and ill-will alleged by accused against investigating officer – Where no material are placed on record to prove such allegation and where investigation has revealed materials to make out prima facie case, proceedings cannot be quashed. (Dr.N.Nagamabikadevi Vs Central Bureau of Investigation) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 255 (Karnataka)
Trial pending for 19 years – Speedy Trial – Delay – Seriousness of offence and why delay has occurred to be seen – Appellant filed 3 revision petitions and contributed in delay – Case for quashing not made out. (Jagdish Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 520 (S.C.)
Adverse remarks against Govt. servant in judgment – Remarks expunged as no opportunity had been afforded to the Govt. servant to explain his conduct. (Ram Sarup Rohilla Vs State of Haryana) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 525 (P&H)
Adverse remarks in judgment based on statement of I.O. – No opportunity of hearing afforded before passing such remarks – Petition for expunging of remarks allowed. (Aneeta Bhatnagar Jain Vs State of U.P.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 320 (Allahabad)
Annexures attached to petition – High Court should not act on annexures – Annexures cannot be termed as evidence without being tested and proved. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 591 (S.C.)
By citing overruled judgment relief got from High Court – Order of High Court set aside – Case remitted back – Supreme Court expressed its anguish at the falling standard of professional conduct – Members of the Bar are officers of the Court – They have a bounden duty to assist the Court and not to mislead it. (State of Orissa Vs Nalinikanta Muduli) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 421 (S.C.)
Civil suit – Pendency of – Held, mere pendency of civil suit does not ipso facto lead to a conclusion that there is misuse of the process of law. (Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs Ami Chand & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 890 (P&H)
Complaint – Not to be quashed at the threshold in a case where culpability could be established on proper analysis of the expert evidence that may be adduced by the complainant. (Mohanan Vs Prabha G.Nair & Anr.) 2004(1) Apex Court Judgments 517 (S.C.)
Complaint – Quashing – Contradiction with regard to the date and time of occurrence in complaint petition and initial deposition – Two applications filed by complainant to withdraw complaint alleging the complaint allegations were false – Reasonable conclusion can be drawn that allegations made in complaint were not correct – Continuance of criminal proceedings an abuse of process of Court – Proceedings quashed. (Asom Kumar Das Vs Nilima Rajbongshi) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 137 (Gauhati)
Complaint – Quashing of – Allegations in complaint appeared absurd and actuated by malice – Complaint and proceedings quashed. (Smt.Archana Mehta Vs State of Jharkhand & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 269 (Jharkhand)
Complaint – Quashing of – Delay – Criminal complaint cannot be quashed on ground of delay where bar of limitation u/s 468 Cr.P.C. is not attracted as effect of delay can only be seen at the stage of trial on the basis of evidence on record. (Harnam Singh Vs Everest Construction Co. & Ors.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 260 (S.C.)
Complaint – Quashing of – Prior to filing of complaint petitioner lodged police report for offence u/s 307 IPC wherein complainant and his associates were arrested and complainant when came out on bail filed present complaint – Complaint appeared to have been filed actuated by malice and there was no allegation actually against petitioner – Allegations appeared to be absurd and actuated with malice – Proceedings quashed. (Smt.Archana Mehta Vs State of Jharkhand & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 269 (Jharkhand)
Complaint – Summoning order – Cannot be quashed when complaint discloses ingredients of offence – A complaint or FIR and the proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto can be quashed if reading of the summoning order fails to disclose the commission of offence alleged or any other offence or lack of application of mind by Magistrate. (Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs Ami Chand & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 890 (P&H)
Concealment of facts – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable when there is concealment of facts. (Ashwani Kumar Vs State of Punjab) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 222 (P&H)
Conviction u/s 498-A r/w 34 IPC – Parties resolved their differences and sorted out the misunderstanding – There is no ill-feeling or bitterness between them – Parties want to continue the cordial relations between them and therefore, they do not want to pursue the criminal case any further – Criminal proceeding quashed. (Gambhir Rajaram Chaudhari & Ors. Vs Nirmala & Anr.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 374 (Bombay)
Criminal proceedings – Cannot be quashed solely on the ground that Govt. has proposal to withdraw the prosecution. (Balkar Singh Vs Jagdish Kumar & Ors.) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 321 (S.C.)
Criminal proceedings – Quashing of – Where the complaint or FIR does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence, the same can be quashed even at the initial stage. (Ajay Mitra Vs State of M.P. & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 77 (S.C.)
Criminal proceedings – Quashing of – While exercising jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. it is not permissible for the court to act as if it was a trial Judge – Even at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to only prima facie to be satisfied about the existence of sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused – For that limited purpose, the court may evaluate the material and documents on record but cannot appreciate the evidence. (Ajit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 691 (P&H)
Criminal proceedings at initial stage – High Court to exercise restraint in interference – However, complaint if accepted on its face value, does not make out an offence or when there are no averments in the complaint to connect accused with the offence, High Court is entitled to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process of Court. (Keki Bomi Dadiseth & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 89 (Bombay)
Exercise of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – Illustrative categories – Analysed. (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 591 (S.C.)
FIR – Cannot be quashed on ground of alibi as it requires evidence to be led by both the sides. (Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 524 (P&H)
FIR – Cannot be quashed on the ground that petitioner is not the person named in FIR – Petitioner whether same person or a different person can only be established by leading evidence by both sides – FIR cannot be quashed on this ground. (Ranjit Singh Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 524 (P&H)
FIR – Counter blast – Quashing of – FIR against wife for committing murder of her husband – Thereafter wife lodged FIR under Sections 406, 498-A IPC against mother of her deceased husband – FIR lodged by wife quashed being counter blast. (Vidya Devi Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 10 (P&H)
FIR – Quashing – If the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, the proceeding can be quashed. (Anoop Kumar Vs State of U.P. & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 298 (Allahabad)
FIR – Quashing of – Corruption case – Nothing on record to connect petitioner with alleged crime – FIR not disclosing prima facie case – Investigation pending for last 4 years – Fit case to quash FIR. (Dr.Updesh Vs State of Rajasthan) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 472 (Rajasthan)
FIR – Quashing of – Criminal proceedings initiated with mala fide intention or with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused would constitute a valid ground for quashing such proceedings. (Vidya Devi Vs State of Haryana) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 10 (P&H)
FIR – Quashing of – Power has to be exercise very sparingly and with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases – Court is not justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR – Court also cannot inquire whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established or not – In impugned judgment High Court examined documents, compared signatures thereon and proceeded to arrive at conclusion that documents were not false or fabricated – Reasons for quashing FIR are unsustainable. (M.Narayandas Vs State of Karnataka & Ors.) 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 631 (S.C.)
FIR cannot be quashed if it does not disclose all ingredients of offence, but satisfies the basic ingredients. (Raj Kumar Vs The State of Punjab) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 308 (P&H)
Forcible, illegal dispossession of tenant from rented premises – Possession to be restored to the said person with the police help, if necessary. (Vijay Raj Jain Vs The Secretary, Home Department) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 51 (Madras)
Forcible, illegal dispossession of tenant – Non performance of duty vested with police to maintain law – Wanton inaction of 5th respondent by refusing to entertain complaint and not taking prompt action – Directions to Director General of Police to take suitable departmental action against 5th respondent. (Vijay Raj Jain Vs The Secretary, Home Department) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 51 (Madras)
If allegations set out in complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it is open to High Court to quash the same in exercise of inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (M/s.Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Md.Sharaful Haque) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 541 (S.C.)
If no offence is made out by taking FIR and/or statement of witnesses recorded during investigation at their face value, without adding or subtracting anything, High Court would be justified in interfering with the order of cognizance. (T.Chalapati Rao Vs The State) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 334 (Orissa)
If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. (State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Goloconda Linga Swamy & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 272 (S.C.)
Inherent jurisdiction may be exercised (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice – It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. (State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Goloconda Linga Swamy & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 272 (S.C.)
It is impermissible to invoke inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings when facts are contentious and disputed. (G.P.R.Housing Private Limited, Bangalore & Anr. Vs K.Venugopala Krishna) 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 170 (Karnataka) : 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 24 (Karnataka)
Jurisdiction – A complaint disclosing some offence prima facie cannot legally be quashed on the ground of jurisdiction. (Punjab Tyre House & Ors. Vs State of Gujarat) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 18 (Gujarat)
Limitation – No limitation is prescribed for filing a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. – However a petition should be filed within a reasonable time – Period of 90 days is a reasonable time – Delay should be explained if petition is filed beyond this period. (Palwinder Raj Singh Vs The State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 673 (P&H)
Matter pending in a Court under the jurisdiction of another High Court – High Court of that State can only quash criminal complaint. (Krishnakumar Menon Vs Neoteric Informatique (P) Ltd.) 2002(1) Criminal Court Cases 528 (Kerala)
No case made out even as per the complaint – There is no reason to permit the appellants to be subjected to trial. (U.Dhar Vs State of Jharkhand) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 64 (S.C.) : 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 71 (S.C.)
Order passed by High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court cannot review the order. (State of U.P. & Ors. Vs Surendra Kumar) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 892 (S.C.)
Petition for expunging remarks – High Court made remarks against Session Judge in judgment – Session Judge sought expunging of remarks before Supreme Court – Supreme Court directed Session Judge to move application before High Court for expunging remarks. (S.K.Bhatt Vs State of U.P. & Ors.) 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 495 (S.C.) : 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 464 (S.C.)
Petition to quash proceedings – There is no bar to entertain petition to quash proceedings only on the ground that challan has been presented or even charges have been framed – Each case has to be examined on its own facts. (Harjinder Kaur & Ors. Vs State of Punjab) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 445 (P&H)
Power to be exercised with due care and caution and very sparingly – Court cannot look into documents filed by victim in divorce proceedings which would be considered during trial. (D.Surender Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh) 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 80 (A.P.)
Private complaint u/ss 341, 323, 325, 506 and 386/34 against public servant – Proceeding sought to be quashed on the ground that complaint is counter blast and retaliatory measure because large quantity of ivory was seized from complainant – Inherent improbabilities of complainant’s case and patent mala fides involved – Magistrate in criminal case has specifically asked complainant if any ill-treatment was given to him to which complainant did not made any complaint – Case fits in with category No.7 of broad categorises indicated in Bhajan Lal’s case – Proceedings quashed. (State of Orissa Through Kumar Raghvendra Singh & Ors. Vs Ganesh Chandra Jew) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 650 (S.C.)
Quashing of criminal proceedings – As per the statement of driver of vehicle and Panchnama there was some material to proceed against the respondent – Commission of offence was disclosed – High Court not justified in quashing the proceedings where commission of an offence is made out. (Dy.Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Nizamabad Division, Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Vs M/s Balaji Cattle Feeds & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 176 (S.C.)
Quashing of criminal proceedings – Criminal proceedings can be quashed if initiation or continuance of the criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of the proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice, when no offence is disclosed by the complaint. (M/s Shri Srinivasa Cut Pieces & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 357 (Bombay)
Quashing of criminal proceedings – If the dispute involved is of civil nature then the process of criminal law cannot be misused by giving it a cloak of criminal offence. (G.C.Rohilla Vs M/s Gian Rice & General Mills) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 133 (P&H)
Quashing of FIR – When an information is lodged at police station and an offence is registered, then mala fides of the informant is of secondary importance – It is the material collected during investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person – Allegations of mala fides against informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis of quashing the proceedings. (M/s.Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Md.Sharaful Haque) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 541 (S.C.)
Quashing of proceedings – If taking the allegations and the complaint, as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out, the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings. (Dr.Suresh Gupta Vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr.) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 283 (S.C.)
Remedy by way of civil suit available – Not a ground to quash criminal proceedings where complaint discloses ingredients of offence alleged. (Hrishikesh Das Vs Nirmalaya Dasgupta) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 753 (Gauhati)
Remedy by way of civil suit available – Not a ground to quash criminal proceedings where complaint discloses ingredients of offence alleged. (T.Susheela & Anr. Vs State By Jayanagar Police Station, Bangalore) 2004(4) Criminal Court Cases 443 (Karnataka)
Search and arrest – By Police Officer not competent – Proceedings will amount to an abuse of process of Court – Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings to prevent the abuse of process of court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. (Sinu Sainudheen Vs Sub Inspector of Police) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 358(2) (Kerala)
Second petition – Maintainable on basis of changed circumstances. (Ajit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.) 2004(2) Criminal Court Cases 691 (P&H)
Sentence of fine – Accused unable to pay fine within time – Accused filing successive applications for extension of time – All of them rejected – Appeal – Held, in view of the statement that accused was ill advised to file number of applications before the High Court, time for payment of fine extended. (Mahendra Singh Vs State of Bihar) AIR 2002 S.C. 387
Summoning order – Order is revisable – Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable when alternative remedy is available. (Palwinder Raj Singh Vs The State of Punjab) 2003(1) Criminal Court Cases 673 (P&H)
When cognizance is taken without jurisdiction then complaint can be quashed even after framing of charge. (Parminder Kaur @ Parvinder Kaur Vs Joginder Kaur) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 17 (P&H)
FIR – Not to be quashed if it discloses basic ingredients of offence – Further when FIR is recorded by police on orders passed by Magistrate u/s 156 Cr.P.C. is added prohibition to quash FIR. (Mohd. Zakir Hussain Vs State of Haryana) 2003(3) Criminal Court Cases 641 (P&H)
Charge – Quashing of charge – Principle to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed, would it constitute an offence or not – The truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of charge can be done only at the stage of trial. (State of Maharashtra Vs Salman Salim Khan & Anr.) 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 853 (S.C.)
Further cross examination – Recall of prosecution witness – Reason stated for recall that accused would engage another counsel – Another counsel added and former counsel also continued – For just decision of the case recall of prosecution witness for further cross examination allowed. (Vimal Prakash Vs The State of Rajasthan) 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 568 (Rajasthan)
Offence u/s 406, 498-A IPC – Parties compromised – Wife received a sum of Rs.2.25 lacs – Wife backed out – Settlement arrived at the intervention of Additional Sessions Judge – Wife received substantial amount – Settlement appears to be genuine – FIR quashed. (Mohd. Shamim & Ors. Vs Nahid Begum & Anr.) 2005(1) Criminal Court Cases 837 (S.C.)
Multiple sentences – Obligatory on the part of Court to specify as to whether sentences should run concurrent or consecutive – Conviction in eleven cases and accused in each case sentenced to one year imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed – All sentences ordered to run concurrently inspite of a bar to alter the judgment under section 362 Cr.P.C. (Bhima Shankar Vs State of Karnataka) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 545 (Karnataka)
Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable when there is a specific provision for revision. (M/s Mangat Ram Raj Kumar Vs M/s Gurdit Singh Jagrup Singh) 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 466 (P&H)
High Court in an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not loathed with the power to pass an order for release on bail. (Murali Mohakur @ Mendidhar & Ors. Vs State of Orissa & Anr.) 2002(2) Criminal Court Cases 248 (Orissa)
Bail – Non bailable offence – Grant of bail to a female or a sick or infirm person – Court to exercise discretion reasonably and to serve the purpose for which proviso is added to the provision. (Mst.Mugli Vs State through SHO Police Station Sopore) 2004(3) Criminal Court Cases 596 (J&K)
