Supreme Court Judgments On CrPC/BNSS

Code Of Criminal Procedure - CaseCiter

CaseCiter

Vindhyachal vs State Of Uttar Pradesh - S 378 CrPC - Appeal Against Acquittal

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 -Appellate Court while exercising its power under Section 378 as it then was, should be slow in reversing the order of acquittal. In other words, a Court of Appeal shall not substitute the view of the Trial Court, especially when the views expressed by the Trial Court is a plausible one. It is a case of double presumption of innocence that would enure to the benefit of an acquitted person. [SC restores acquittal of accused in a 1978 murder case]

State Of Rajasthan vs Indraj Singh 2025 INSC 341 - Bail - Effect On Society

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 439- Bail - Lack of criminal antecedents and the period of custody are perfectly valid criteria for grant of bail, but the Court while giving due credence to them, cannot lose sight of the primary offence and its effect on society. (Para 9)

Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 338 - S.227 CrPC - Discharge - S. 304 Part II IPC

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 227 - What Section 227 CrPC contemplates is that if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the judge considers that there is no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for doing so. At the stage of consideration of discharge, the court is not required to undertake a threadbare analysis of the materials gathered by the prosecution. All that is required to be seen at this stage is that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. In other words, the materials should be sufficient to enable the court to initiate a criminal trial against the accused. It may be so that at the end of the trial, the accused may still be acquitted. At the stage of discharge, court is only required to consider as to whether there are sufficient materials which can justify launch of a criminal trial against the accused. By its very nature, a discharge is at a higher pedestal than an acquittal. Acquittal is at the end of the trial process, may be for a technicality or on benefit of doubt or the prosecution could not prove the charge against the accused; but when an accused is discharged, it means that there are no materials to justify launch of a criminal trial against the accused. Once he is discharged, he is no longer an accused. (Para 16)

Jamin vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 330 - S. 319 CrPC - Revisional Jurisdiction

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319, 397-401 -Unlike cases where an application under Section 319 is being decided in the first instance by the Trial Court, the conclusion of trial will have no bearing on the adjudication of an application under Section 319 in terms of the directions of the High Court passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction - The legal effect of the order passed by the High Court relating back to the original order of the Trial Court is that the Trial Court would not be rendered functus officio for the purpose of considering the application under Section 319 after the conclusion of the trial Trial Court, in considering the application under Section 319 after the conclusion of the trial, merely gives effect to a revisional order directing it to consider the application afresh which it had originally rejected. (Para 115)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 - Section 319 does not contemplate that a summoned person must be given an opportunity of being heard before being added as an accused to face the trial. A right of hearing would accrue only to a person who is already discharged in the very same proceeding prior to the commencement of the trial- However, after the rejection of an application under Section 319, a right enures in favour of the proposed accused. Thereafter, if in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is to pass an order which is prejudicial to the benefit which had already enured in favour of the proposed accused, then the High Court is obligated in law to provide an opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused. This is also the mandate as contained in sub-section (2) of Section 401 of the CrPC. (Para 115)

Legal Maxims - Judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur - The Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted. (Para 38)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 -Section 319 CrPC can be exercised against a person not subjected to investigation, or a person placed in Column 2 of the chargesheet and against whom cognizance had not been taken, or even a person who has been discharged. However, as regards a person who has been discharged, no proceedings can be commenced against him directly under Section 319 CrPC without taking recourse to provisions of Section 300(5) read with Section 398 CrPC. Such a person can be proceeded against under Section 319 only if during or after an inquiry under Section 300(5) read with Section 398, there appears to be evidence against such person which may indicate that they committed any offence for which they could be tried together with the accused- if the evidence tendered in the course of any inquiry or trial shows that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which he could be tried together with the accused, he can be summoned to face trial even though he may not have been chargesheeted by the investigating agency or may have been discharged at an earlier stage.

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 -While the provision of de novo or fresh trial under Section 319(4) is mandatory, the said sub-section is applicable only in cases where the court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1). Thus, a de novo trial can be commenced in respect of the proposed accused only if the power under sub-section (1) has been validly exercised by the court. (Para 46)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 - The expression “could be tried together with the accused” for exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 319 is mandatory in the sense that a joint trial of the original accused and proposed accused must be possible. However, whether a joint trial, or a separate trial, is held is left to the discretion of the Trial Court. As a result, passing of the summoning order before the conclusion of trial is mandatory. It cannot be said for a moment that passing of the summoning order before the conclusion of trial is directory merely because sub-section (4) provides for conduct of a fresh trial in respect of the additional accused. (Para 66)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 -For a person to be summoned under Section 319 in the split-up trial, the condition precedent is that the evidence taken in the split-up trial by itself should indicate towards the involvement of the proposed accused in the offence. (Para 58)

Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 2025 INSC 328 - S. 142 NI Act - S. 406 CrPC - Transfer Petition

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 406 ; Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 138, 142- Section 142 of the N.I. Act in clear terms, provides the complainant with the right to lodge a complaint, before a court, within whose jurisdiction, the branch of the bank where the cheque is delivered for collection, is situated. Therefore, the argument that another court might also be empowered to take cognizance of the matter under Section 142, since the cause of action arose within that jurisdiction, cannot by itself be a ground for seeking transfer under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. (Para 55)

Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 138, 142-  The complainant can file a complaint before the courts within whose jurisdiction the collection branch of the bank falls (para 63) - The word ‘delivered’ used in Section 142(2)(a) of the N.I. Act has no significance. What is of significance is the expression ‘for collection through an account’- The delivery of the cheque takes place where the cheque was issued and presentation of the cheque will be through the account of the payee or holder in due course, and the said place is decisive to determine the question of jurisdiction.(Para 62)

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 406 - It is only the Supreme Court that has the power to transfer a case pending in a Court subordinate to one High Court to be tried by a Court subordinate to another High Court - A case is transferred by virtue of the powers under Section 406 if there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of a party to a case that justice will not be done. There, however, must be reliable material from which it can be inferred that there are impediments that are interfering or likely to interfere, either directly or indirectly, with the cause of justice.(Para 31) - Some of the broad factors which could be kept in mind while considering an application for transfer of the trial are: (i) when it appears that the State machinery or prosecution is acting hand in glove with the accused, and there is likelihood of miscarriage of justice due to the lackadaisical attitude of the prosecution; (ii) when there is material to show that the accused may influence the prosecution witnesses or cause physical harm to the complainant; (iii)comparative inconvenience and hardships likely to be caused to the accused, the complainant/the prosecution and the witnesses, besides the burden to be borne by the State exchequer in making payment of travelling and other expenses of the official and non-official witnesses; (iv)a communally surcharged atmosphere, indicating some proof of inability in holding a fair and impartial trial because of the accusations made and the nature of the crime committed by the accused; and (v) existence of some material from which it can be inferred that some persons are so hostile that they are interfering or are likely to interfere, either directly or indirectly, with the course of justice. (Para 49)- Mere inconvenience or hardship that the accused may have to face in travelling would not fall within the expression “expedient for the ends of justice”. (Para 65)

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 461,462 - If an offender is tried by a Magistrate not empowered by law in that behalf, his proceedings shall be void under Section 461. Section 462 does not make the principle contained therein to have force notwithstanding anything contained in Section 461.(Para 38) 

Devinder Kumar Bansal vs State Of Punjab 2025 INSC 320 - Anticipatory Bail- Corruption Cases

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 438 - BNSS - Section 482 - Anticipatory Bail- The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused’s liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice - Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped in the crime or the allegations are politically motivated or are frivolous. (Para 21) Corruption Cases - If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant - accused of indulging in corruption. 

Kamal @ Kamal Choudhary vs State Of Madhya Pradesh - Second Bail Application - Change Of Circumstances

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 439 - Even if an earlier bail application is rejected, an accused can make a fresh application at a subsequent stage on the ground of material change in circumstances. [Context: In this case, after the first bail application was rejected, now all the eyewitnesses have been examined. This was a major change in circumstance brought about after the dismissal of the first application for bail]

Union Of India vs Man Singh Verma 2025 INSC 292 - S. 439 CrPC - Bail - Compensation

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 439 : BNSS 2023- Section 483 -The jurisdiction conferred upon a Court under Section 439 CrPC is limited to grant or refusal of bail pending trial. In the following decisions, this Court has time and again held that the sphere of consideration, when exercising power under this Section pertains only to securing or restricting liberty of the person in question. - [Context: SC set aside HC judgment directing NCB to pay Rs. 5 Lakh compensation to NDPS accused while disposing his bail application and observed: The undue restriction of liberty, i.e., without the backing of procedures established by law is unquestionably an affront to a person’s rights but the avenues to seek recourse of law in connection therewith are limited to remedies as per law]

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 439 : BNSS 2023- Section 483 -The jurisdiction conferred upon a Court under Section 439 CrPC is limited to grant or refusal of bail pending trial. In the following decisions, this Court has time and again held that the sphere of consideration, when exercising power under this Section pertains only to securing or restricting liberty of the person in question. - [Context: SC set aside HC judgment directing NCB to pay Rs. 5 Lakh compensation to NDPS accused while disposing his bail application and observed: The undue restriction of liberty, i.e., without the backing of procedures established by law is unquestionably an affront to a person’s rights but the avenues to seek recourse of law in connection therewith are limited to remedies as per law]

Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya vs Mahesh Prakash Ahuja 2025 INSC 282 - S 378 CrPC - Grant Of Leave To Appeal

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 378 - At the stage of considering grant of leave under sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., a prima facie case should be looked into by the High Court, of course, not ignoring the materials on record - How the application for grant of leave to appeal filed under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. should be decided by the High Court and what are the parameters which the High Court should keep in mind - Referred to State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar reported in (2008) 9 SCC 475 - The principle underlying the above rule lies in the doctrine of human fallibility that “Men are fallible” and “Judges are also men” (Para 7- 12) 

Sudershan Singh Wazir vs State (NCT of Delhi) 2025 INSC 281 - Revision Against Discharge Order - Power To Stay

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 390, 397, 401 - The High Court has the power to suspend the operation of the order impugned in the revision application - The power under Section 390 can be exercised in a revision against an order of discharge - It is only in rare and exceptional cases where the order of discharge is ex-facie perverse that the revisional Court can take the extreme step of staying that order. However, such an order should be passed only after giving an opportunity of being heard to the accused. Moreover, while granting the stay, the Court must mould the relief so that the trial does not proceed against the discharged accused - While exercising power under Section 390 of the CrPC, the normal rule is that the acquitted accused should not be committed to custody, and a direction should be issued to admit him to bail. This normal rule should apply all the more to cases where the challenge is to the order of discharge, as the order of discharge is on a higher pedestal than an order of acquittal- Passing an order under Section 390 directing the discharged accused to admit to bail is sufficient to procure the presence of the discharged accused at the time of hearing of the revision application and for undergoing trial if the order of discharge is set aside. (Para 14-20)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 390 - As a normal rule, where an order under Section 390 of the CrPC is passed, the accused must be admitted to bail rather than committing him to prison. It is well-settled in our jurisprudence that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception. This rule must be applied while exercising power under Section 390 of the CrPC, as the position of the acquitted accused is on a higher pedestal than an accused facing trial. When an accused faces trial, he is presumed to be innocent until he is proven guilty. In the case of an acquitted accused, as stated earlier, the presumption of innocence is further strengthened because of the order of acquittal. Only in extreme and rare cases by way of exception can an order committing an acquitted accused to prison be passed under Section 390. (Para 18)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 227,245 - An order of discharge is passed when there is no sufficient material to proceed against the accused. When a discharge order is passed, the person discharged ceases to be an accused. The position of a discharged accused is on a higher pedestal than that of an accused who is acquitted after a full trial. The reason is that a charge can be framed, and an accused can be tried only when there is sufficient material in the charge sheet to proceed against him. An order of discharge is passed when the charge sheet does not contain sufficient material to proceed against the accused. Therefore, he is discharged at the threshold. After an accused is discharged under Section 227 of the CrPC, he is set at liberty as he ceases to be an accused. (Para 12)

Kanishk Sinha vs State Of West Bengal 2025 INSC 278 - S 156(3) CrPC - Priyanka Srivastava Direction - Prospective

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 156(3) - The direction in Priyanka  Srivastava  vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 287 that all applications before the Court where Section 156(3) CrPC applications are made must be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant will be prospective in nature - (Para 4-6)

Radhika Agarwal vs Union Of India 2025 INSC 272 - GST Acts - Customs Act - Power To Arrest

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 50, 41B, 41D, 50A, 55A- Customs Act -The customs officers are not police officers. (Para 16)- Section 50 - The obligation to provide grounds of arrest is incumbent upon them. Customs officers must also maintain records of their statutory functions including details like the name of the informant, name of the person who has violated the law, nature of information received by the officers, time of arrest, seizure details, and statements recorded during the course of detection of the offence(s) (Para 24) Section 41-B - Procedures of arrest and the duties of the officer making the arrest - .Although this section refers to the police officer, we believe, it equally imposes a duty on the customs officers. Officers making an arrest are required to bear an accurate, legible, and clear indication of their names to facilitate ease of identification by the arrestee (Para 25)- Section 41-D of the Code is applicable for offences under the Customs Act. Accordingly, a person arrested by a customs officer has the right to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation, but not throughout interrogation (Para 26) - Section 55A states that it shall be the duty of the person having custody of the accused to take reasonable care of their health and safety. This provision shall be equally applicable to arrests under the Customs Act. (Para 28) - Stipulations under Section 50A will apply in cases of arrests made by the customs officers. (Para 27)

Suneeti Toteja vs State Of U.P. 2025 INSC 267 - S 197 CrPC - Deemed Sanction

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 197 - Section 197 of CrPC does not envisage a concept of deemed sanction - Clarified Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64 : A separate but concurring opinion had given some guidelines for the consideration of the Parliament, one of which is to the effect that at the end of the extended period of time limit, if no decision is taken, sanction will be deemed to have been granted to the proposal for prosecution, and the prosecuting agency or the private complainant will proceed to file the chargesheet/ complaint in the court to commence prosecution within fifteen days of the expiry of the aforementioned time limit. However, such a proposition has not yet been statutorily incorporated by the Parliament and in such a scenario, this Court cannot read such a mandate into the statute when it does not exist. (Para 30-31)

State Of Karnataka vs T.N. Sudhakar Reddy 2025 INSC 229 - Prevention Of Corruption Act - Preliminary Inquiry

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 36, 154 : BNSS - Section 30, 173 - If the officer in charge of a police station can direct the registration of an FIR under Section 154, as a natural corollary by virtue of Section 36 CrPC, superior officers, are equally competent to issue such directions for registration of the FIR. (Para 44)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 154 : BNSS - Section 173 - If the information reveals the commission of a cognizable offence, the police officials are duty-bound to register an FIR, except in cases where individual reputation and relations are at stake, wherein it is advisable to conduct a preliminary inquiry. (para 28)

Fair Investigation -The purpose of fair investigation is to ensure that the accused is afforded all the rights guaranteed to him under the law. As a corollary, an investigation which should be expected to be fair, must focus on collecting evidence that leads to the right conclusion and nothing else. A fair investigation cannot be interpreted to cater to the accused only, rather it must be such that the entire investigation process has a backing of the law, and the due procedure established therein. Thus, the ambit of fair investigation tethers the procedural safeguards in order to remain immune from arbitrary actions of individual investigators. (Para 42)

Abhishek Mishra vs State Of Uttar Pradesh - S 482 CrPC - Filing Of Chargesheet

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 : BNSS 2023 - Section 528 - Merely filing of charge-sheet is not a ground for refusal to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Even after filing of the charge-sheet, the High Court is expected to take into consideration whether a prima facie case is made out or not.(Para 2)

State Of Rajasthan vs Surendra Singh Rathore 2025 INSC 248 - Permissibility Of Second FIR

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 154 : BNSS 2023 - Section 173 - Principles regarding the permissibility of the registration of a second FIR: (1) When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered. (2) When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances. (3)When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy. (4) When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances. (5)Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different. (Para 9)

Context: SC set aside HC judgment which quashed the second FIR on the ground that FIRs were in regard to the same offence and observed: The FIR prior in point of time refers to a particular incident and the action taken therein is limited. The second FIR pertains to the larger issue of widespread corruption in the concerned department and, therefore, is much larger in its scope than the previous FIR. Quashing of the FIR would nip the investigation into such corruption, in the bud. The same would be against the interest of society. ]

State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Girish Kumar - Criminal Appeal Against Conviction

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 374,386 : BNSS 2023 - Section 415,427 - In an appeal before the High Court against the judgment and order of conviction, it is expected of the Appellate Court to re-appreciate and reevaluate the entire evidence properly and more particularly when the High Court reaches the conclusion that the Trial Court committed an error in holding the accused guilty of the alleged offence. (Para 12)

Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2025 INSC 242 - Scope Of S. 437(6) CrPC - Bail

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 437(6)- Reasons for rejection of application under sub-section (6) of the said Section have to be different and little more weighty than the reasons that may be relevant for rejection for bail at the initial stage (Para 11)- Applications under Section 437 (6) have to be given a liberal approach and it would be a sound and judicious exercise of discretion in favour of the accused by the Court concerned more particularly where there is no chance of tampering of evidence e.g. where the case depends on documentary evidence which is already collected; where there is no fault on part of the accused in causing of delay; where there are no chances of any abscondence by the accused; where there is little scope for conclusion of trial in near future; where the period for which accused has been in jail is substantial in comparison to the sentence prescribed for the offence for which he is tried. Normal parameters for deciding bail application would also be relevant while deciding application under Section 437(6) of the Code, but not with that rigour as they might have been at the time of application for regular bail- Where there is absence of positive factors going against the accused showing possibility of prejudice to prosecution or accused being responsible for delay in trial, application under Section 437(6) has to be dealt with liberal hands to protect individual liberty as envisaged under the Constitution of India and sought to be protected by insertion of sub-section (6) to Section 437 of the Code by the legislature. (Para 17-18)

Jaideep Bose vs Bid And Hammer Auctioneers Private Limited 2025 INSC 241 - Freedom Of Speech & Expression - Defamation - S 200 CrPC

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 200 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 210 - Upon receiving a private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate must mandatorily conduct an inquiry or investigation before proceeding to issue process against the accused, if such accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court. In other words, the Magistrate must examine witnesses before issuing summons in cases where the accused resides outside the Magistrate’s jurisdiction. (para 13.3)

In Re: Policy Strategy For Grant Of Bail 2025 INSC 239 - S 432 CrPC - Remission Policy - Premature Release

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 432 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023- Section 473 - (1) Where there is a policy of the appropriate Government laying down guidelines for consideration of the grant of premature release under Section 432 of the CrPC or Section 473 of the BNSS, it is the obligation of the appropriate Government to consider cases of all convicts for grant of premature release as and when they become eligible for consideration in terms of the policy. In such a case, it is not necessary for the convict or his relatives to make a specific application for grant of permanent remission. When the jail manual or any other departmental instruction issued by the appropriate Government contains such policy guidelines, the aforesaid direction will apply.(Para 21) (2) Appropriate Government has the power to incorporate suitable conditions in an order granting permanent remission. The conditions must be such that they are capable of being complied with. The conditions cannot be vague. The conditions cannot be oppressive. When a convict is released by granting relief of permanent remission, it is necessary to ensure that he is rehabilitated in society. It is necessary to consider the nature of the crime he committed. To fix terms and conditions, it is necessary to ascertain the motive for committing the crime for which he was punished. Even criminal background needs to be taken into consideration. Another concern that must be taken care of is public safety. Even the impact on society and the victims of the offence needs to be considered while determining the terms and conditions. In short, the conditions must be such that the same ensures that the criminal tendency of the convicts remains in check, they do not indulge in the commission of crimes, and they are rehabilitated in society. Their proper rehabilitation is most vital as it prevents them from going back to their criminal activities.a) Consideration of various factors which are mentioned by way of illustration is necessary before finalizing the terms and conditions; b) The conditions must aim at ensuring that the criminal tendencies, if any, of the convict remain in check and the convict rehabilitates himself in society; c) The conditions should not be so oppressive or stringent that the convict is not able to take advantage of the order granting permanent remission; and d) The conditions cannot be vague and should be capable of being performed. (Para 21,13) (3) Order granting or refusing the relief of permanent remission must contain brief reasons. The order containing reasons should be immediately communicated to the convict through the office of the concerned prison. The copies thereof should be forwarded to the Secretaries of the concerned District Legal Services Authorities. It is the duty of the prison authorities to inform the convict that he has the right to challenge the order of rejection of the prayer for the grant of remission.-An order granting permanent remission cannot be withdrawn or cancelled without giving an opportunity of being heard to the convict. An order of cancellation of permanent remission must contain brief reasons. (Para 21)(4)When the Presiding officer's opinion is sought as per Sub- Sections (2) of Section 432 of the CrPC and Section 473 of the BNNS, the Presiding Officer must submit his opinion at the earliest considering the fact that the issue of liberty of the convict is involved. (Para 20)

Constitution of India - Article 72,161 -Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 433A : Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023- Section 475 The power of the President of India under Article 72 of the Constitution of India and the power of the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution to grant pardon, commute the sentence, or remit the sentence remains unaffected by Section 433-A of the CrPC or Section 475 of the BNSS. (Para 3)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 432, 433A : Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023- Section 473, 475 The power under Section 432 of the CrPC is circumscribed by Section 433-A. It provides that where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under Section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, the appropriate Government cannot grant remission unless the convict has served at least fourteen years of actual imprisonment. There is an identical provision in Section 475 of the BNSS. This is an embargo on the power of the appropriate Government under Section 432 of the CrPC. (Para 3)

Ganesh Shetti vs Rajan Chaudhray - S 401 CrPC - Revision Petition - Absence Of Advocate

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 401 -: BNSS 2023 - Section 442 - Though, High Court had a power to decide a Revision Petition in absence of the advocate for the revision petitioner, normally, the High Court should avoid adopting the said course when the order under challenge is the order of conviction. The High Court ought have given a reasonable opportunity to enable the appellant to procure presence of his Advocate. The High Court could always appoint a legal aid lawyer to espouse the cause of the appellant. (Para 7)

Sovaran Singh Prajapati vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 225 - S 311,313 CrPC - Fair Trial - Cross Examination - Death Penalty Set Aside - Retrial

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 311 : Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 348 - principles as governing the application of Section 311 Cr.P.C. : (a) The Section is divided into two parts, the first being directory with the use of the word ‘may’ and the latter being mandatory with the use of the word ‘shall’. (b) The power of the Court is couched in the widest terms possible with no express limitation thereon. (c) The exercise of such power is not only the prerogative but also the duty of the Court, in connection with a witness who may be considered absolutely necessary, in the interest of justice. (d) This power is to be used both for the benefit of the prosecution and the defence. To summon a witness because it serves the case of one of the parties and not the other, would be improper. (e) This power can be exercised at any stage of proceedings, i.e. enquiry, trial or any other. (f) Power is to be exercised judiciously since wider the power, greater the requirement of the application of a judicial mind. (g) If a witness so-called under this power, gives evidence against the complainant, the latter should be given an opportunity to cross- examination. This power arises not under Section 311 but under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (h) A witness cannot be recalled by the use of this power to simply fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution. (Para 30)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 313 : Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 351- Quoted from Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (i) It is the duty of the Trial Court to put each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused specifically, distinctively and separately. The material circumstance means the circumstance or the material on the basis of which the prosecution is seeking his conviction; (ii) The object of examination of the accused under Section 313 is to enable the accused to explain any circumstance appearing against him in the evidence; (iii) The Court must ordinarily eschew material circumstances not put to the accused from consideration while dealing with the case of the particular accused; (iv) The failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to a serious irregularity. It will vitiate the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused; (v) If any irregularity in putting the material circumstance to the accused does not result in failure of justice, it becomes a curable defect. However, while deciding whether the defect can be cured, one of the considerations will be the passage of time from the date of the incident; (vi) In case such irregularity is curable, even the appellate court can question the accused on the material circumstance which is not put to him; (vii) In a given case, the case can be remanded to the Trial Court from the stage of recording the supplementary statement of the concerned accused under Section 313 of CrPC; and (viii) While deciding the question whether prejudice has been caused to the accused because of the omission, the delay in raising the contention is only one of the several factors to be considered. (Para 32)

Fair Trial - Article 21 guarantees the Right to Fair Trial.The following principles as to the meaning and import of fair trial, can be illustratively deduced : (1) Fair and Just investigation is the starting point of the fair trial process. (2) This process is a triangulation of the rights of the accused, the victim and the community that acts through the state and prosecuting agencies. (3) Process of investigation and trial must be completed with promptitude. (4) The trial Judge has to play an active role in the search for truth, which a trial, undoubtedly has to be. (5) Bias of all nature, against the accused, the victim, the witnesses; or the cause of/at trial, has to be eliminated. (6) The process of fair trial is to be done to maintain public confidence & uphold the majesty of law. (7) The atmosphere in which a trial is to be conducted in a fair manner has to be in an atmosphere of ‘judicial calm’. (8) Unfair prolongation of trial is an affront to the ideal of fair trial. (9) The ideal of fair trial has protection in the Constitution and in the international legal framework, as a basic human right. (10) The centripodal purpose of fair trial is to ensure that injustice is avoided as far as possible, but equally ‘fair trial’ is not leveraged to a point which would hinder the established procedure of Cr.P.C. In other words, the command of the Code cannot be ignored at the behest of the prosecution or defence, in the name of fair trial - To secure a fair trial, is not a solitary responsibility. The Judge; the investigator; the investigating agency; and the counsel for either side, each have their own responsibility. (Para 10.6)

Criminal Trial - A trial is a fact-finding exercise wherein both parties, i.e., the prosecution and defence, after investigation by the competent authorities, present their versions of events and the role and duty of the Court to determine the truth. While undertaking such determination, the Court is not only to look at the evidence at hand but also ensure that all consideration balances the demand for justice and the rights of the accused. (Para 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 386 : Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 427 -A Court in first appellate jurisdiction, has to appreciate the evidence on record, after duly summoning the record of the Courts below, and then arrive at its own finding, irrespective of the order under challenge before it being of conviction or acquittal- When particularly concerned with cases of Capital Punishment, naturally, since a person’s life hangs in the balance, the High Court’s responsibility is accordingly enhanced/heightened. It “must carefully examine all relevant and material circumstances before upholding the conviction and confirming the sentence of death.". (Para 18-19)

Public Prosecutor - The job of the prosecution is to drive home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but at the same time, the prosecutor cannot forget that his first and foremost duty is, that of an officer of the Court. The prosecuting agency carries the role, primarily, till the time the matter enters the Court. They have a responsibility to examine all possible angles, collect all relevant evidence and then produce the same before the Court for determination of guilt or lack thereof. (Para 20) - Referred t0 Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Criminal Trial - Purpose of cross-examination, they are: a) to call into question, credibly the evidentiary value of the witness; b) to bring out such facts, that may favour the cross-examining lawyer’s client; and c) to establish the said witness, is unworthy of belief, and that his credit stands impeached. (Para 26)

International Law - The Indian Constitution enjoins a responsibility upon all persons to foster respect for international law- Even when it comes to the gravest and most heinous crimes committed against humanity as a whole, a person accused of having so committed such offences is also entitled to basic protection under the law. In our facts, ending someone’s life is, in fact, one of the gravest crimes that a person may commit, and so even here the accused is entitled to the protection of law ensuring that the process that condemns him as ‘convicted of an offence’, is free of procedural irregularities and blemishes which may call into question the credibility of the conclusion arrived at by such a process- All prosecutions and conclusions of either guilt or innocence must give due importance and primacy to these obligations along with constitutional and statutory guarantees as discussed supra. (Para 33)

Vinod Kumar vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2025 INSC 209 - S 145 Evidence Act - S 161 CrPC - Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial Evidence - When the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. There must be a chain of circumstances so complete as not to leave any ground for any conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. (Para 10)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 145 - Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 161 - The portion of the prior statement shown to the witness for contradicting the witness must be proved through the investigating officer. Unless the said portion of the prior statement used for contradiction is duly proved, it cannot be reproduced in the deposition of the witnesses. The correct procedure is that the Trial Judge should mark the portions of the prior statements used for contradicting the witness. The said portions can be put in bracket and marked as AA, BB, etc. The marked portions cannot form a part of the deposition unless the same are proved. (Para 11)

Suman Mishra vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 203 - S 498A IPC - Quashing

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 482 - The duty of a High Court in deciding a quashing petition discussed. (Para 15) - Referred to Iqbal alias Bala Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2023) 8 SCC 734. (Para 15)

P.M. Lokanath vs State Of Karnataka 2025 INSC 202 - S 482 CrPC - Quashing

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - High Courts in exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise secure ends of justice. Referred to State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. (Para 20) Such powers should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of rare cases. [In this case, the Court noted that initiation of criminal proceedings is totally activated by mala fide, instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite the appellants- Quashed Criminal Proceedings]

B.V. Ram Kumar vs State Of Telangana 2025 INSC 194 - S 504 IPC - Senior's Admonition At Workplace

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - In order to entertain a challenge to the FIR, chargesheet or an order taking cognizance, all that has to be seen is, whether from a bare reading of the chargesheet, the ingredients of the sections charged therein are being prima facie made out or not- Constitutional courts are wholly competent to exercise their extraordinary power to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of the justice if the allegations in the FIR or complaint neither disclose the commission of any offence nor make out a prima facie case against the accused. (Para 14)

Naushey Ali vs State of U.P. 2025 INSC 182- S 482 CrPC - S 307 IPC - Attempt To Murder Cases - Quashing On Settlement

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 306 - Will the mere mention of Section 307 IPC in the criminal proceedings force the court to adopt a hands-off approach, when parties come forward with a settlement? Mere mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge-sheet should not be the basis for adopting a hands-off approach. It has further held that it would be open for the court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or whether there is evidence to back it. (Para 9-12)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 320, 482 - Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. (Para 6)

Lalita vs Vishwanath 2025 INSC 173 - S 306 IPC - FIR By Deceased Person - Evidentiary Value

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 154- If the informant dies, the First Information Report can be, unquestionably, used as a substantive evidence. A prerequisite condition must be fulfilled before the F.I.R. is taken as a substantive piece of evidence i.e. the death of the informant must have nexus with the F.I.R. filed or somehow having some link with any evidence regarding the F.I.R. (Para 32) F.I.R. can be a dying declaration if the informant dies of his injuries after lodging the same (Para 33) For an F.I.R. lodged by a deceased person to be treated as substantial, its contents must be proved. It has to be corroborated and proved for there to be any value of the same in the case. The F.I.R. can be used by the defence to impeach the credit of the person who lodged the F.I.R. under Section 154(3) of the Evidence Act. In case the death of the informant has no nexus with the complaint lodged i.e. he died a natural death and did not succumb to the injur- ies inflicted on him in relation to a matter, the contents of the F.I.R. would not be admissible in evidence. In such circumstances, the contents cannot be proved through the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer, in the course of his deposition, should not be permitted to depose the exact con- tents of the F.I.R. so as to make them admissible in evidence. All that is permissible in law is that the Investigating Of- ficer can, in his deposition, identify the signature of the first informant and that of his own on the First Information Report and he can depose about the factum of the F.I.R. being registered by him on a particular date on a particular police station. (Para 34)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 154-. It may happen that the informant is the accused himself. In such cases, the First Information Report lodged by him cannot be used as an evidence against him because it is embodied in the basic structure of our Constitution that a person cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. (Para 30)

Apruva Kirti Mehta vs State Of Maharashtra - Bail - Courts Not Recovery Agents

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 437-439- Bail - The courts, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/pre-arrest bail, are not expected to act as recovery agents for realization of dues of the complainant from the accused. (Para 8)

Vihaan Kumar Vs State Of Haryana 2025 INSC 162 - Art. 22 Constitution - Requirement Of Informing Grounds Of Arrest 

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 41 - BNSS - Section 35 -Police officer cannot casually arrest a person against whom the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years is alleged. He can arrest provided twin conditions in clause (ba) are satisfied. The emphasis is on “credible information”. He cannot arrest a person under clause (ba) unless credible information is received.: a) Credible information has been received against the person that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years and b) The police officer has reason to believe on the basis of the information received that such a person has committed the offence. (Para 8)

Constitution of India - Article 21,22 - a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved; c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1); d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.

Constitution of India - Article 21 - In this case, accused was taken to a hospital while he was handcuffed and he was chained to the hospital bed - SC held: This itself is a violation of the fundamental right of the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to live with dignity is a part of the rights guaranteed under Article 21. : The State of Haryana directed to issue guidelines/departmental instructions to the police to ensure that the act of handcuffing an accused while he is on a hospital bed and tying him to the hospital bed is not committed again. (Para 29,33)

Wahid vs State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi 2025 INSC 145 - Criminal Trial - Robbery

Criminal Trial - Robbery - In cases where the FIR is lodged against unknown persons, and the persons made accused are not known to the witnesses, material collected during investigation plays an important role to determine whether there is a credible case against the accused. In such cases, the courts have to meticulously examine the evidence regarding (a) how the investigating agency derived clue about the involvement of the accused in the crime; (b) the manner in which the accused was arrested; and (c) the manner in which the accused was identified. Apart from above, discovery/ recovery of any looted article on the disclosure made by, or at the instance of, the accused, or from his possession, assumes importance to lend credence to the prosecution case.

Om Prakash Ambedkar Vs Maharashtra 2025 INSC 139 - S 156(3) CrPC - Changes Brought By BNSS 

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 156(3) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 175(3) - Three prominent changes that have been introduced by the enactment of BNSS: First, the requirement of making an application to the Superintendent of Police upon refusal by the officer in charge of a police station to lodge the FIR has been made mandatory, and the applicant making an application under Section 175(3) is required to furnish a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, while making the application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3). b. Secondly, the Magistrate has been empowered to conduct such enquiry as he deems necessary before making an order directing registration of FIR. c. Thirdly, the Magistrate is required to consider the submissions of the officer in charge of the police station as regards the refusal to register an FIR before issuing any directions under Section 175(3)- The changes introduced by Section 175(3) of the BNSS to the existing scheme of Section 156(3) merely codify the procedural practices and safeguards which have been introduced by judicial decisions aimed at curbing the misuse of invocation of powers of a Magistrate by unscrupulous litigants for achieving ulterior motives- Further, by requiring the Magistrate to consider the submissions made by the concerned police officer before proceeding to issue directions under Section 175(3), BNSS has affixed greater accountability on the police officer responsible for registering FIRs under Section 173. Mandating the Magistrate to consider the submissions of the concerned police officer also ensures that the Magistrate applies his mind judicially while considering both the complaint and the submissions of the police officer thereby ensuring that the requirement of passing reasoned orders is complied with in a more effective and comprehensive manner.

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 156(3) - Whenever any application is filed by the complainant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate seeking police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., it is the duty of the concerned Magistrate to apply his mind for the purpose of ascertaining whether the allegations levelled in the complaint constitute any cognizable offence or not. In other words, the Magistrate may not undertake the exercise to ascertain whether the complaint is false or otherwise, however, the Magistrate is obliged before he proceeds to pass an order for police investigation to closely consider whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are borne out on plain reading of the complaint. (Para 11)

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 294 - The act of a police officer assaulting the complainant within public view or public - Obscene act for the purpose of Section 294 has a particular meaning. Mere abusive, humiliating or defamatory words by themselves are not sufficient to attract the offence under Section 294 of the IPC. (Para 15)

Karuppudayar vs State 2025 INSC 132 - SC-ST Act - Public View - S 482 CrPC

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - The power under Section 482 of the CrPC is required to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases- The court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. However, the court would be justified in exercising its discretion if the case falls under any of the clauses carved out by this Court in Paragraph 102 in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. (para 17)

N. Usha Rani vs Moodudula Srinivas 2025 INSC 129- S 125 CrPC - Second Marriage 

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 125 - The right to maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC is not a benefit received by a wife but rather a legal and moral duty owed by the husband - Referred to Mohd. Abdul Samad vs. State of Telangana - Social welfare provisions must be subjected to an expansive and beneficial construction- In this case, the issue raised was: Whether a woman is entitled to claim maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC from her second husband while her first marriage is allegedly legally subsisting? Distinguished judgments in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Another (1988) 1 SCC 530 and Bakulabai and Another vs. Gangaram and Another (1988) 1 SCC 537 which denied maintenance in cases of subsisting marriages- Plea of separation from the first marriage was not made in those cases and hence, they are factually distinguishable- when the social justice objective of maintenance u/s. 125CrPC is considered against the particular facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot, in good conscience, deny maintenance to Appellant - The Court also noted: Respondent knowingly entered into a marriage with Appellant not once, but twice. While MoU of Separation is not a legal decree of divorce, it also emerges from this document and other evidence that the parties have dissolved their ties, they have been living separately and Appellant is not deriving maintenance from her first husband. Therefore, barring the absence of a legal decree, Appellant is de facto separated from her first husband and is not deriving any rights and entitlements as a consequence of that marriage.

INOX Air Products Limited vs State Of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 128- S 204 CrPC - Ss 18,27 Drugs & Cosmetics Act

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 204 - Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter - The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto- Magistrate is required to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary in support thereof and as to whether that would be sufficient for proceeding against the accused- Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused. (Para 35)

JM Laboratories Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh 2025 INSC 127- S 204 CrPC 

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 204- Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter - The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto- Magistrate is required to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary in support thereof and as to whether that would be sufficient for proceeding against the accused- Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused. (Para 35) - Quoted from INOX Air Products Limited Now Known as INOX Air Products Private Limited and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Mahabir Vs State Of Haryana 2025 INSC 120 - S 372 CrPC - Victims' Right To Appeal - Art.20-22 Constitution - S 145 Evidence Act - Public Prosecutors

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 372 Proviso - The ‘proviso’ is a substantive enactment, and is not merely excepting something out of or qualifying what was excepting or goes before. Therefore, by adding the ‘proviso’ in Section 372 of CrPC by this amendment, a right has been created in favour of the victim -The proviso establishes an independent right and is not an exception to Section 372, but a stand-alone legal provision. The amendment made in Section 372 CrPC by adding a proviso in the year 2009 creating a substantive right of appeal is not retrospective in nature.(Para 54-72)

Constitution of India - Article 21 - In cases where there can be no dispute of facts, the constitutional courts have the power to award compensation in case a person has been deprived of his life and liberty without following the procedure established by law. (Para 84)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 154 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 161,162,164 - the material elicited as contradiction by use of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act is not substantive evidence. Even in regard to the statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC by authorised Magistrate, it has been held accordingly- Therefore, the fact that the contradictions are proved through the investigating officers though the witnesses have denied having made such statements, does not translate the contradictions into substantive evidence. Unless there is substantive evidence, it cannot be acted upon legally particularly to base a conviction. (Para 81) - The phrase 'if duly proved' in Section 162 of the CrPC indicates that the statements of witnesses recorded by the police cannot be immediately admitted as evidence or examined. They must first be proven through eliciting admissions from the witness during cross-examination and also during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. While statements made to the Investigating Officer can be used for contradiction, this can only be done after strict compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act. This requires drawing attention to the specific parts of the statement intended for contradiction. This is what is required under Section 145 of the Evidence Act but even where a witness is confronted by his previous statement and given an opportunity to explain that part of the statement that is put to him does not constitute substantive evidence. (Para 80)

Public Prosecutors - State Governments across the country appoint AGPs and APPs in their respective High Courts solely on political considerations. Favouritism and nepotism is one additional factor for compromising merit - The AGPs and APPs in respective High Courts should be appointed solely on the merit of the person. The State Government owes a duty to ascertain the ability of the person; how proficient the person is in law, his overall background, his integrity etc- Role of Public Prosecutors explained (Para 92-98)

Ajay Malik vs State of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 118 - Domestic Workers' Rights - Ss 227,320,482 CrPC - S 343, 120B IPC

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482- High Court, in exercising its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision. However, given the broad and profound nature of this authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or where intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice. (Para 8)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 320 -A delicate balance ought to be struck in cases wherein the parties seek compounding of the offences. Though well- intentioned, an excessively moralistic order may unnecessarily prolong criminal proceedings, which have no logical conclusion and only serve to further distress the parties. (Para 32)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 227 - The discharge stage acts as a critical filter to eliminate cases lacking legal merit, sparing the accused from unnecessary proceedings, while ensuring that credible cases proceed to trial. Thus, discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC is justified when the material on record fails to disclose a prima facie case against the accused to proceed for trial. The legislative spirit behind this provision envisions the rights of the accused being balanced with public interest, so as to ultimately prevent abuse of the legal process. (Para 34)

Constable 907 Surendra Singh State Of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 114 - S 34 IPC - S 378 CrPC

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 378 - The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal- the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. (Para 11-12) [In this case, SC restored acquittal of accused]

Deen Dayal Tiwari vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 111 - Death Sentence Commuted 

Death Sentence - The imposition of capital punishment is an exception and not the rule. Even where multiple murders have been committed, if there is evidence or at least a reasonable possibility of reform, a lesser sentence must be preferred - In this case, the Appellant was convicted for the murders of his wife and four minor daughters -While commuting death sentence, SC observed: We must scrutinize not only the nature of the offence but also the totality of the offender’s circumstances - While the offence is undoubtedly brutal, certain mitigating factors, especially the Appellant’s lack of criminal antecedents and his reported conduct in prison, tilt the scales in favour of commutation. There is no material demonstrating that he would remain a perpetual threat to society or that he is beyond reform. Indeed, the Probation Officer’s input and the Superintendent of District Jail’s report show a potentially reformable individual- while the crime is heinous and deserves the highest degree of condemnation, it does not meet the threshold of “the rarest of rare” so as to irrevocably foreclose the option of life imprisonment- IPC, we consider it appropriate to commute the death sentence to one of life imprisonment till his last breath. (Para 21)

Sentencing - The alternate punishment for offences punishable by death, such as imprisonment for a specific term exceeding 14 years or until the natural life of the convict, remains within the judicial conscience of this Court and the High Court. (Para 23)

State Of Jharkhand vs Dr. Nishkant Dubey 2025 INSC 94 - Aircraft Act - S 482 CrPC - Ss 336,441,447,448 IPC

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - In exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, it is open to the High Court to quash an FIR either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice- An FIR can be quashed if the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused or where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings. (Para 30)

Musheer Alam Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh - CrPC - Arrest After Charge-Sheet Is Filed

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 173 - Re: Practice in the State of Uttar Pradesh that arrest is effected after the charge-sheet is filed and the Court takes cognizance of the charge-sheet: We do not propose to say anything as regards in this unusual practice except that it makes no sense- once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed then the accused should be asked to appear before the Court concerned and should furnish bail to the satisfaction of the trial court - If at all, the Investigating Officer wanted to interrogate the petitioner, he could have arrested him during the course of the investigation itself. Now there is no point in making a formal arrest. (Para 8-10)

X vs State Of Uttarakhand - S 397 CrPC - Revisional Jurisdiction - POCSO Case

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 397 - BNSS - Section 438 - When the POCSO Court had taken the cognizance of the alleged offence, considering the seriousness and gravity of the offence, in our opinion, the High Court should not have interfered with the same and remanded the matter for fresh investigation. It may also be noted that the High Court has directed as to how the investigation should have been done by the I.O., which, according to us, was absolutely unwarranted in exercise of its limited revisional jurisdiction. (Para 6)

Ajay Agarwal Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh - Ss 227,229 CrPC - Discharge

Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 227,239 - BNSS - Section 250,269- The Scope of inquiry in discharge application is limited and no document which is not a part of the charge-sheet can be considered at that stage. (Para 4)

Srikant Kumar @ Shrikant Kumar vs State Of Bihar - S 438 CrPC - Anticipatory Bail

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - HC, while granting anticipatory bail, imposed a pre- condition on the accused for paying maintenance to wife - Allowing appeal, SC quashed this condition and observed: When application for bail is filed, the Court is required to impose such bail conditions which would ensure that the appellant does not flee from justice and is available to face Trial. Imposing conditions which are irrelevant for exercise of power under Section 438 of the CrPC would not be warranted. (Para 9-11)

Deepak Aggarwal Vs Balwan Singh - S 482 BNSS - Anticipatory Bail - Ad Interim Protection

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 438 - BNSS 2023 - Section 482- Ordinarily, when the High Court takes up anticipatory bail application for hearing it has three options. Either it may reject it on the very first day or it may issue notice to the State but would not grant any ad-interim protection or in a given case may issue notice and may even deem fit to grant appropriate protection. The aforesaid is of course the discretion of the Court concerned having regard to the merits of the matter. [In this case, HC passed an ad-interim order which reads thus”- “In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation. In the event of arrest, he shall be on ad interim bail to the satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer subject to the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNNS, 2023.” - In appeal, SC observed: What we disapprove in the present case is the nature of the ad-interim relief granted. The same is practically in the nature of granting the final relief. 15. There is no point in asking the accused to go before the investigating officer pending the final disposal of the anticipatory bail application before the High Court and further saying that in the event of arrest he shall be released on ad-interim bail. Such ad-interim reliefs have their own legal implications.]

Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena … vs Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato 2025 INSC 55

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 125(4) - Mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband’s behest and non-compliance therewith by the wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. It would depend on the facts of the individual case and it would have to be decided, on the strength of the material and evidence available, whether the wife still had valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband, despite such a decree. There can be no hard and fast rule in this regard and it must invariably depend on the istinctive facts and circumstances obtaining in each particular case. In any event, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights secured by a husband coupled with non-compliance therewith by the wife would not be determinative straightaway either of her right to maintenance or the applicability of the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 125- Even if non-compliance with an order for payment of maintenance entails penal consequences, as may other decrees of a Civil Court, such proceedings would not qualify as or become criminal proceedings. Nomenclature of maintenance proceedings initiated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, as those provisions find place therein, cannot be held to be conclusive as to the nature of such proceedings. (Para 30)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 125- A wife, who suffered a decree of divorce on the ground of deserting her husband, would not be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as long as the marriage subsisted, but she would be entitled to such maintenance once she attained the status of a divorced wife, in the light of the definition of a ‘wife’ in Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) Cr.P.C.

Naushad Ahmad Ansari Vs State Of Uttarakhand - S 482 CrPC

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 -The dismissal of a previous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not bar a subsequent petition, under the said Section from being entertained, if the facts so justify. [ SC set aside HC judgment that quashed criminal proceedings observing thus: The record is silent as to which facts persuaded the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction for a second time when one such petition already stood dismissed and such order, confirmed by this Court.]

State Of Punjab vs Hari Kesh 2025 INSC 50 - S 482 CrPC - S 19 PC Act - Sanction Order Quashing

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- Section 19 - High Court quashed Sanction Order - Allowing Appeal, SC observed: Whether the Sanction has been granted by the competent authority or not, would be a matter of evidence. Further, as per the Explanation to sub-section (4), for the purpose of Section 19, error includes “competency of the authority to grant Sanction.”- High Court should not have quashed the Sanction Order and the consequent proceedings, unless it was satisfied that the failure of justice had occurred by such error or irregularity or invalidity. There is not a whisper in the impugned order about any failure of justice having occurred on account of the impugned Sanction Order. The High Court also should not have entertained the petition for quashing the Sanction Order when the prosecution had already examined seven witnesses- Referred to State of Karnataka, Lokayukta Police Versus S. Subbegowda. (Para 8)

Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Kottayam vs Mathew K Cherian 2025 INSC 51 - S 143 Railways Act - S 482 CrPC

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of a criminal proceeding can take place, inter alia, if the first information report does not reveal a crime or if the fact situation be such that continuance of the criminal proceedings would result in abuse of the process causing injustice to the accused. This power of quashing, however, is not unfettered or unlimited and as the old adage goes - “judicial discretion has to be exercised judiciously". (Para 33)

Mahesh Singh Banzara vs State Of Madhya Pradesh - Fundamental Right Of Appeal Against Conviction

Constitution of India - Article 21; Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 374- The right to appeal, particularly when it concerns the liberty of an individual, is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution- Right of Appeal from a judgment of conviction affecting the liberty of a person keeping in view the expansive definition of Article 21 is also a Fundamental Right- Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd., (2007) 6 SCC 528 and Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan, (1982) 3 SCC 382 (2). (Para 6)

Sanjay Dutt vs State Of Haryana 2025 INSC 34 - Vicarious Liability - Company Directors

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 156(3), 200 -When jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the CrPC, the Court concerned should remain vigilant & apply its mind carefully before taking cognizance of a complaint. (Para 15)

Jit Vinayak Arolkar vs State Of Goa 2025 INSC 31 - S 482 CrPC - S 415 IPC

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing a First Information Report alleging offence under Section 415, 420 IPC - Allowing appeal, SC observed: The dispute between the parties is predominantly a civil dispute- When there was a dispute over the title, the act of setting in motion criminal law two years after the date of filing of the suits amounts to nothing but abuse of the process of law.

Daljit Singh State Of Haryana 2025 INSC 21 - S 174A IPC - S 820 CrPC

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 82- The purpose of Section 82 is to ensure that a person who is called to appear before a Court, does so. This Section appears as part of Chapter VI which is titled ‘Process to Compel Appearance’. Section 83 to 90 provide for the additional method of attachment of property to the end of securing appearance. Necessarily then some or the other proceeding has to be ongoing for which the presence of such person is necessary. The words of the Section dictate that it can be only issued in respect of a person against whom a warrant has been issued. Neither a warrant nor proclamation subsequent can be conjured up out of thin air. (Para 7.1)

Omi @ Omkar Rathore vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2025 INSC 27 - S 319 CrPC

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 - Even in a case where the stage of giving opportunity to the complainant to file a protest petition urging upon the trial court to summon other persons as well who were named in the FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet has gone, in that case also, the Court is still not powerless by virtue of Section 319 CrPC and even those persons named in the FIR but not implicated in the charge- sheet can be summoned to face the trial provided during the trial some evidence surfaces against the proposed accused.

Kim Wansoo vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 8 - Art. 226 Constitution - S 482 CrPC - Quashing

Constitution of India - Article 226 ; Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 -Normally, quashing of criminal proceedings would be sought and would be done in exercise of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. But certainly, that does not mean that it could not be done only in invocation of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

B. N. John Vs State Of U.P 2025 INSC 4 - S 195 CrPC - Ss 186,353 IPC - Ss 154,55,195 CrPC

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 195 - Complaint which is required to be filed under Section 195 (1) of the CrPC, can only be before a Judicial Magistrate and not an Executive Magistrate who does not have the power to take cognizance of an offence or try such cases. (Para 19)

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 186 ; Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 195 - When no complaint was filed by the concerned public servant as contemplated under Section 195 (1)(a) CrPC, CJM could not have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 186- A written complaint by a public servant before the court takes cognizance is sine qua non, absence of which would vitiate such cognizance being taken for any offence punishable under Section 186. (Para 15-21) [In this case, complaint was filed before the City Magistrate and not before a Judicial Magistrate- SC held: the requirement of Section 195 (1) of the CrPC was not fulfilled.]

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 154- Though FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia containing all the detailed facts of the incident and it is merely a document that triggers and sets into motion the criminal legal process, yet it must disclose the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed as otherwise, it would be susceptible to being quashed. (Para 25) If vital and crucial facts are missing from the FIR of which the complainant was fully aware of and was already cognizant of, which he could have mentioned at the first instance, it would indicate that any subsequent mentioning of these facts in the case by the complainant would be an afterthought as has happened in the present case. (Para 27)

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 155(4)- If in the course of the investigation of a cognizable offence, the ingredients of a non-cognizable offence are discovered then the police could have continued the investigation without the written complaint to the court or the order of the court in respect of such non-cognizable offence, as it would also be deemed to be a cognizable offence under Section 155(4) of the CrPC, but where the investigation of the cognizable office itself suffers from legal infirmity and without jurisdiction from the initial stage, the entire investigation would be vitiated. (Para 37)

Muskan Enterprises vs State Of Punjab 2024 INSC 1046 - S 148 NI Act - S 482 CrPC - Res Judicata

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482-High court would have the inherent power to decide any successive petition under section 482 and that it is not denuded of that power by the principle of res judicata (Para 15)- Change of law can legitimately be regarded as a vital change in circumstance clothing the high court with the power, competence and jurisdiction to entertain the subsequent petition notwithstanding the fact that the earlier petition was withdrawn without obtaining any leave, subject to the satisfaction recorded by the high court that the order prayed for in the subsequent petition ought to be made, inter alia, either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. (Para 19)

Res Judicata -The principle of res judicata has no application in a criminal proceeding - The principle of res judicata, traceable in Section 11 of the CPC, does neither apply to criminal proceedings nor is there any provision in the Cr. PC akin to Order XXIII Rule 1(3), CPC. the principle of res judicata has no application in a criminal proceeding. (Para 14-18)

Amar Sardar vs State Of West Bengal 2024 INSC 1040 - S 372 CrPC - Appeal Against Conviction

Code Of Criminal Procedure -Section 372 - There shall be independent application of mind in deciding the criminal appeal against conviction. It is the duty of an appellate court to independently evaluate the evidence presented and determine whether such evidence is credible. Even if the evidence is deemed reliable, the High Court must further assess whether the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court though being an appellate Court is akin to a Trial Court, must be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the prosecution's case is substantially true and that the guilt of the accused has been conclusively proven while considering an appeal against a convication- High Court must provide clear reasons for accepting the evidence on record. Mere concurrence with the findings of the Trial Court is insufficient unless supported by a well-reasoned indepenent justification. As the first appellate court, the High Court is expected to evaluate the evidence including the medical evidence, statement of the victim, statements of the witnesses and the defence’s version with due care. While the judgment need not be excessively lengthy, it must reflect a proper application of mind to crucial evidence. Albeit the High Court does not have the advantage to examine the witnesses directly, the High Court shall, as an appellate Court, re-assess the facts, evidence on record and findings to arrive at a just conclusion in deciding whether the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused or not- Large pendency of cases bombarding our courts cannot come in the way of the Court’s solemn duty, particularly, when a person's liberty is at stake

Digambar Vs State Of Maharashtra 2024 INSC 1019 - S 498A, 312-313 IPC - FIR Quashing.

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482- When the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute a case against the accused, the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings -Where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose any offence and make out a case against the accused, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. (Para 29)

Om Prakash Yadav Vs Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay 2024 INSC 979- S 197 CrPC - Sanction

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 197- When a police official is said to have lodged a false case, he cannot claim that sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC was required since it can be no part of the official duty of a public official to lodge a bogus case and fabricate evidence or documents in connection with the same- duty. The mere fact that an opportunity to register a false case was furnished by the official duty would certainly not be sufficient to apply Section 197 CrPC. Allowing so, would enable the accused to use their status as public servants as a facade for doing an objectionable, illegal and unlawful act and take undue advantage of their position. (Para 67) 

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 197- (i) There might arise situations where the complaint or the police report may not disclose that the act constituting the offence was done or purported to be done in the discharge of official duty. However, the facts subsequently coming to light may establish the necessity for sanction. Therefore, the question whether sanction is required or not is one that may arise at any stage of the proceeding and it may reveal itself in the course of the progress of the case. (ii) There may also be certain cases where it may not be possible to effectively decide the question of sanction without giving an opportunity to the defence to establish that what the public servant did, he did in the discharge of official duty. Therefore, it would be open to the accused to place the necessary materials on record during the trial to indicate the nature of his duty and to show that the acts complained of were so interrelated to his duty in order to obtain protection under Section 197 CrPC (iii) While deciding the issue of sanction, it is not necessary for the Court to confine itself to the allegations made in the complaint. It can take into account all the material on record available at the time when such a question is raised and falls for the consideration of the Court. (iv) Courts must avoid the premature staying or quashing of criminal trials at the preliminary stage since such a measure may cause great damage to the evidence that may have to be adduced before the appropriate trial court. (Para 74) In cases, where there is a legitimate doubt as regards whether sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC is required or not, the progress of the trial must not be hampered or unnecessarily delayed. (Para 84)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 197-  (i) The object behind the enactment of Section 197 CrPC is to protect responsible public servants against institution of possibly false or vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act in their official capacity. It is to ensure that the public servants are not prosecuted for anything which is done by them in the discharge of their official duties, without any reasonable cause. The provision is in the form of an assurance to the honest and sincere officers so that they can perform their public duties honestly, to the best of their ability and in furtherance of public interest, without being demoralized. (ii) The expression “any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty” in Section 197 CrPC must neither be construed narrowly nor widely and the correct approach would be to strike a balance between the two extremes. The section should be construed strictly to the extent that its operation is limited only to those acts which are discharged in the “course of duty”. However, once it has been ascertained that the act or omission has indeed been committed by the public servant in the discharge of his duty, then a liberal and wide construction must be given to a particular act or omission so far as its “official” nature is concerned. (iii) It is essential that the Court while considering the question of applicability of Section 197 CrPC truly applies its mind to the factual situation before it. This must be done in such a manner that both the aspects are taken care of viz., on one hand, the public servant is protected under Section 197 CrPC if the act complained of falls within his official duty and on the other, appropriate action be allowed to be taken if the act complained of is not done or purported to be done by the public servant in the discharge of his official duty. (iv) A public servant can only be said to act or purport to act in the discharge of his official duty, if his act is such that it lies within the scope and range of his official duties. The act complained of must be integrally connected or directly linked to his duties as a public servant for the purpose of affording protection under Section 197 CrPC. Hence, it is not the duty which requires an examination so much as the “act” itself. (v) One of the foremost tests which was laid down in this regard was - whether the public servant, if challenged, can reasonably claim that, what he does, he does in virtue of his office. (vi) Later, the test came to be re-modulated. It was laid down that there must be a reasonable connection between the act done and the discharge of the official duty and the act must bear such relation to the duty such that the accused could lay a reasonable, but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that his actions were in the course of performance of his duty. Therefore, the sine qua non for the applicability of this section is that the offence charged, be it one of commission or omission, must be committed by the public servant either in his official capacity or under the color of the office held by him such that there is a direct or reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. (vii) If in performing his official duty, the public servant acts in excess of his duty, the excess by itself will not be a sufficient ground to deprive the public servant from protection under Section 197 CrPC if it is found that there existed a reasonable connection between the act done and the performance of his official duty. (viii) It is the “quality” of the act that must be examined and the mere fact that an opportunity to commit an offence is furnished by the official position would not be enough to attract Section 197 CrPC. (ix) The legislature has thought fit to use two distinct expressions “acting” or “purporting to act”. The latter expression means that even if the alleged act was done under the color of office, the protection under Section 197 CrPC can be given. However, this protection must not be excessively stretched and construed as being limitless. It must be made available only when the alleged act is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. (x) There cannot be any universal rule to determine whether there is a reasonable connection between the act done and the official duty, nor is it possible to lay down such a rule. However, a “safe and sure test” would be to consider if the omission or neglect on the part of the public servant to commit the act complained of would have made him answerable for a charge of dereliction of his official duty. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, the protection under Section 197 CrPC can be granted since there was every connection with the act complained of and the official duty of the public servant. (xi) The provision must not be abused by public servants to camouflage the commission of a crime under the supposed color of public office. The benefit of the provision must not be extended to public officials who try to take undue advantage of their position and misuse the authority vested in them for committing acts which are otherwise not permitted in law. In such circumstances, the acts committed must be considered dehors the duties which a public servant is required to discharge or perform. (xii) On an application of the tests as aforesaid, if on facts, it is prima facie found that the act or omission for which the accused has been charged has a reasonable connection with the discharge of his official duty, the applicability of Section 197 CrPC cannot be denied- Any misuse or abuse of powers by a public servant to do something that is impermissible in law like threatening to provide a tutored statement or trying to obtain signatures on a blank sheet of paper; causing the illegal detention of an accused; engaging in a criminal conspiracy to create false or fabricated documents; conducting a search with the sole object of harassing and threatening individuals, amongst others, cannot fall under the protective umbrella of Section 197 CrPC. (Para 65-66)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 161- A statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC does not constitute substantive evidence and can only be utilized for the limited purpose of proving contradictions and/or omissions as envisaged under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872. (Para 77)

Partha Chatterjee vs Directorate Of Enforcement 2024 INSC 975- Bail - Official Status Of Accused

Bail - An accused person’s official status should not be grounds for denying bail, it also cannot constitute a special consideration to grant bail if otherwise no case is made out to provide such relief. Official positions, regardless of their stature, lose their relevance for the purpose of exercising judicial discretion judiciously- The grant of bail must be determined based on the unique circumstances of each case, balanced against settled factors such as the gravity of the offence, the nature of the allegations, likelihood of interference with the ongoing investigation, the possibility of evidence tampering, threat or influence over the material witnesses, the societal impact of such release, and the risk of the accused absconding among others. (Para 14-15)

Mendar Singh @ Vijay Singh vs State Of Bihar 2024 INSC 969

Code Of Criminal Procedure - Cancellation of Bail - When there was not even an allegation by the Investigating Agency that the accused has violated any of the conditions which were imposed while granting bail or that he was misusing the liberty granted to him, it was not correct to recall the earlier order granting bail.

Gurmeet Kaur vs Devender Gupta 2024 INSC 967 - S 197 CrPC - Sanction

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 197- HC dismissed petition seeking quashing of complaint filed against a public servant - Allowing appeal, SC observed: When there was no prior order of sanction passed under Section 197 of the CrPC, the initiation of the complaint itself, is non est.

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 197 -For the purpose of application of Section 197, a sine qua non is that the public servant is accused of any offence which had been committed by him in “discharge of his official duty”- Section 197 of the CrPC would not apply to a case if a public servant is accused of any offence which is de hors or not connected to the discharge of his or her official duty. (Para 22)

PND Prasad vs Billa Satish 2024 INSC 964 - CrPC - Reinvestigation & Continuation Of Investigation

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Metropolitan Magistrate, in an order observed: “the investigating agency is directed to reconsider the case and to ascertain the true facts”- HC set aside this order observing that Trial Court could not have directed for a reinvestigation of the matter; that no such powers are envisaged for the Trial Court - Allowing appeal, SC observed: The choice of expression by the Metropolitan Magistrate may not have been appropriate. However, the meaning of the said expression could be discerned as a direction for a continuation of the investigation, having regard to the material on record- Magistrate directed to indicate the consequence of the said order and to conclude the proceedings in accordance with law by following the procedure envisaged in law on the protest petition.

Akanksha Arora vs Tanay Maben 2024 INSC 962 - Ss 482, 397 CrPC - Criminal Revision

Section 482,397 - Availability of alternative remedy of criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC, by itself, cannot be a good ground to dismiss an application under Section 482 CrPC- nomenclature of a petition is immaterial and for doing substantive justice, the High Court can always convert a petition under Section 482 CrPC to a revision under Section 397 CrPC and vice versa. (Para 7-10)

Section 482-The inherent powers should not invade areas set apart for specific powers conferred under CrPC but there is no total ban on the exercise of inherent powers where abuse of process of Court or other extraordinary situation warrants exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The limitation is self-restraint, nothing more. (Para 9)

MR Ajayan Vs State Of Kerala 2024 INSC 881 

Section 195 - The protection intended by the section against a private person filing a frivolous complaint is taken care of when the High Court finds that the matter was required to be gone into in public interest. Such direction cannot be rendered futile by invoking Section 195 to such a situation. Once the High Court directs investigation into a specified offence mentioned in Section 195, bar under Section 195(1)(a) cannot be pressed into service- there is no distinction between a judicial or administrative order by a “Court to which that Court is subordinate.” (Para 22-29) 

Section 195- i. The procedure prescribed under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature. ii. The Section curtails the general right of a person and the general right of a Magistrate to register a complaint when the offences enumerated thereunder are committed. iii. The Section deals with three distinct categories of offences: (1) contempt of lawful authority of public servants, (2) offence against public justice, and (3) offence relating to documents given in evidence. iv. Broadly, the scheme of the Section requires that the offence should be such which has a direct bearing on the discharge of lawful duties of a public servant or has a direct correlation with the proceedings in a Court of justice, affecting the administration of justice.v. The provision only creates a bar against taking cognizance of an offence in certain specified situations except upon complaint by the Court. vi. To attract the bar under Section 195(1)(b), the offence should have been committed when the document was in “custodia legis” or in the custody of the Court concerned. vii. The bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) cannot be thought to be applied when the forgery of a document has happened prior to its production in Court. The bar only applies in case the enumerated offence takes place after the production of the document or in evidence in any Court. viii. High Courts can exercise jurisdiction and power enumerated under Section 195 on an application being made to it or suo-motu, whenever the interest of justice so demands. ix. In such a case, where the High Court as a superior Court directs a complaint to be filed in respect of an offence covered under Section 195(1)(b)(i), the bar for taking cognizance, will not apply-

Section 386- The appellate Court may direct a retrial only in "exceptional" circumstances to avert a miscarriage of justice- The following are some instances, not intended to be exhaustive, of when the Court could order a retrial on the ground of miscarriage of justice: (a) The trial court has proceeded with the trial in the absence of jurisdiction; (b) The trial has been vitiated by an illegality or irregularity based on a misconception of the nature of the proceedings; and (c) The prosecutor has been disabled or prevented from adducing evidence as regards the nature of the charge, resulting in the trial being rendered a farce, sham or charade.

XYZ vs State Of Gujarat 2024 INSC 869

 Section 482 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - When petitions are filed before the High Court for quashing criminal proceedings of non-compoundable offences on the ground of settlement, the High Court must satisfy itself that there is a genuine settlement between the victim and the accused. Without the Court being satisfied with the existence of a genuine settlement, the petition for quashing cannot proceed further. If the Court is satisfied about the existence of a genuine settlement, the other question to be considered is whether in the facts of the case, the power of quashing deserves to be exercised. Even if an affidavit of the victim accepting the settlement is on record, in cases of serious offences and especially against women, it is always advisable to procure the presence of the victim either personally or through video conference so that the Court can properly examine whether there is a genuine settlement and that the victim has no subsisting grievance- When illiterate persons affirm such affidavits by putting their thumb impressions, usually, the affidavit must bear an endorsement that the contents of the affidavits were explained to the person affirming the same. After noticing the absence of such an endorsement, the High Court should direct such persons to personally remain present before the Court. (Para 7)

Ramji Lal Bairwa vs State Of Rajasthan 2024 INSC 846

Section 482- Power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. could not be used to quash proceedings based on compromise if it is in respect of heinous offence which are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society - In cases of this nature, the fact that in view of compromise entered into between the parties, the chance of a conviction is remote and bleak also cannot be a ground to abruptly terminate the investigation, by quashing FIR and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, by invoking the power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. (Para 32-33) -

Directorate of Enforcement vs Bibhu Prasad Acharya 2024 INSC 843 

Section 197 -The object is to protect the public servants from prosecutions. It ensures that the public servants are not prosecuted for anything they do in the discharge of their duties. This provision is for the protection of honest and sincere officers. However, the protection is not unqualified. They can be prosecuted with a previous sanction from the appropriate government- 1. There are two conditions for applicability of Section 197(1). The first condition is that the accused must be a public servant removable from his office by or with the government's sanction. The second condition is that the offence alleged to have been committed by the public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his duty. (Para 6-11)-

Section 197 -Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - The provisions of Section 197(1) of CrPC are applicable to a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA. - Section 71 cannot be invoked to say that the provision of Section 197(1) of CrPC will not apply to the PMLA- When a particular provision of CrPC applies to proceedings under the PMLA by virtue of Section 65 of the PMLA, Section 71 (1) cannot override the provision of CrPC which applies to the PMLA. A provision of Cr. P.C., made applicable to the PMLA by Section 65, will not be overridden by Section 71. (Para 17-18))- Directorate of Enforcement vs Bibhu Prasad Acharya 2024 INSC 843

Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury vs State of Assam 2024 INSC 834

Section 173 -Whether after the acceptance of the Final Report filed under Section 173, Cr.P.C., upon considering the written objection/ protest petition and hearing the complainant, a fresh complaint on the same set of facts is maintainable or not- There can be no blanket bar for filing a second complaint on the same set of facts- When Final Report filed after investigation based on the FIR registered pursuant to the receipt of complaint forwarded by a Court for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., is accepted and protest petition thereto is rejected, the Magistrate can still take cognizance upon a second complaint or second protest petition, on the same or similar allegations or facts- The maintainability or otherwise of the second complaint would depend upon how the earlier complaint happened to be rejected/dismissed at the first instance- If the earlier disposal of the complaint was on merits and in a manner known to law, the second complaint on “almost identical facts” which were raised in the first complaint would not be maintainable. If the core of both the complaints is same, the second complaint ought not to be entertained. [Referred to Samta Naidu & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh ] (Para 23-32) -

Section 300- Section 300 (1), Cr.P.C., is found on the maxim “Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa”, which means that no one shall be vexed twice for one and the same cause. The Section provides that no man once convicted or acquitted shall be tried for the same offence again for one and the same cause. Thus, it can be seen that in order to bar the trial in terms of Section 300 (1), Cr.P.C., it must be shown: - a. that the person concerned has been tried by a competent Court for the same offence or one for which he might have been charged or convicted at that trial, on the same facts. b. that he has been convicted or acquitted at the trial and that such conviction or acquittal is in force. (Para 8)

Section 156(3) and 2(d)- ‘Narazi’ viz., disapproval against a final report submitted in a case investigated by the police on a first information report registered pursuant to the forwarding of a complaint under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., for investigation should be treated as a complaint only if the same satisfies the requirement in law to constitute a complaint as defined under Section 2(d), Cr.P.C. - Though it would be open to the Magistrate to treat a protest petition as complaint and to take further proceedings in accordance with law even after accepting final report that is permissible only if the protest petition concerned satisfies the ingredients to constitute a complaint as defined under Section 2(d).

State of Madhya Pradesh vs Ramjan Khan 2024 INSC 823 - Ss 154,374 CrPC - S 32 Evidence Act - Art. 136 Constitution  

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 374 - In an appeal, against conviction in murder case under Section 374, a proper analysis of the evidence and accepting or rejecting the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court must reflect in the judgment of the High Court- The disposal of the appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C., shall not be by cryptic or non reasoned order. (Para 7)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 154 - FIR is not an encyclopedia disclosing all facts and details relating the entire prosecution case - FIR is not meant to be a detailed document containing chronicle of all intricate and minute details- The prime object of FIR, from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of the investigating authorities is to obtain information about the alleged activity so as to enable to take suitable steps to trace and book the guilty. FIR is an important document, though not a substantial piece of evidence, and may be put in evidence to support or contradict the evidence of its maker viz., the informant. Whether the omission(s) is one which seriously impeaches the credibility of the witness and is sufficient to reject the testimony of the informant would depend upon the question whether it is of an important fact and whether that fact was within the knowledge of the informant, going by the case of prosecution unraveled through the witness concerned. (Para 11-15)

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 32 - Oral dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its correctness. (Para 20)

Criminal Trial - Conviction could be based on testimony of a single witness provided his testimony is found reliable and inspires confidence - When the ocular evidence in a murder case is unreliable benefit of doubt to be given to all accused. (Para 26)

Constitution of India - Article 136 - Where the trial Court and the High Court had concurrently found the accused guilty, the Supreme Court would not scrutinize the evidence once again, unless there has been a total miscarriage of justice. This Court may have to re-appreciate evidence in cases where a prima facie perverse appreciation of evidence is brought out, even in such cases. We shall also not be understood to have held that merely because the trial Court and the High Court have rendered divergent findings, this Court should invariably scrutinize the evidence once again and in that regard this Court should entertain an appeal. (Para 6)

Vimalakka Ramappa Koli @ Talwar vs State Of Karnataka 2024 INSC 818 – S 198 IPC – Caste Certificate – Corruptly Using

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 198-Mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence. Only because the accused could not establish her caste claim before the Committee, one cannot conclude that the accused corruptly used the caste certificate. Moreover, corruptly using the certificate is not sufficient. The accused must have knowledge that the certificate is false. The allegation that the certificate is false to the knowledge of the accused must be proved by the prosecution. (Para 7) Section 415,420 – Fraudulent or dishonest acts are essential ingredients of cheating. (Para 9)

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 378,386- The Appellate Court has to examine whether the findings recorded in the acquittal judgment are plausible findings that could have been recorded based on the evidence on record. Only if the Appellate Court is satisfied that the guilt of the accused is duly proved was the only plausible finding which could have been recorded based on the evidence on record, the Appellate Court can overturn the order of acquittal. In this case, no such finding has been recorded by the Sessions Court. Only because it is possible to take another view is no ground to overturn an order of acquittal. (Para 5)

Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar vs State Of Gujarat 2024 INSC 806 – S 432 CrPC – Remission Conditions

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 432 of the CrPC [ Section 473(1) BNSS] -(I) The appropriate Government has the power to remit the whole or any part of the punishment of a convict. The remission can be granted either unconditionally or subject to certain conditions; (ii) The decision to grant or not to grant remission has to be well informed, reasonable and fair to all concerned; (iii) A convict cannot seek remission as a matter of right. However, he has a right to claim that his case for the grant of remission ought to be considered in accordance with the law and/or applicable policy adopted by the appropriate Government; (iv) Conditions imposed while exercising the power under sub­section (1) of Section 432 or sub­section (1) of Section 473 of the BNSS must be reasonable. If the conditions imposed are arbitrary, the conditions will stand vitiated due to violation of Article 14. Such arbitrary conditions may violate the convict’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution; (v) The effect of remitting the sentence, in part or full, results in the restoration of liberty of a convict. If the order granting remission is to be cancelled or revoked, it will naturally affect the liberty of the convict. The reason is that when action is taken under sub­section (3) of Section 432 of the CrPC or sub­section (3) of Section 473 of the BNSS, it results in the convict being taken to prison for undergoing the remaining part of the sentence Therefore, this drastic power cannot be exercised without following the principles of natural justice. A show cause notice must be served on the convict before taking action to withdraw/cancel remission. The show cause notice must contain the grounds on which action under subsection (3) of Section 432 of the CrPC or sub­section (3) of Section 473 of BNNS is sought to be taken. The concerned authority must give the convict an opportunity to file a reply and of being heard. After that, the authority must pass an order stating the reasons in brief- Registration of a cognizable offence against the convict, per se, is not a ground to cancel the remission order. The allegations of breach of condition cannot be taken at face value, and whether a case for cancellation of remission is made out will have to be decided in the facts of each case. Every case of breach cannot invite cancellation of the order of remission. The appropriate Government will have to consider the nature of the breach alleged against the convict. A minor or a trifling breach cannot be a ground to cancel remission. There must be some material to substantiate the allegations of breach. Depending upon the seriousness and gravity thereof, action can be taken under sub­section (3) of Section 432 of the CrPC or sub­section (3) of Section 473 of the BNSS of cancellation of the order remitting sentence. (Para 17)

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 432 of the CrPC [ Section 473(1) BNSS] – Condition requiring the convict to behave decently for a period of two years after release from jail- The words ‘decent’ or ‘decently’ are not defined in the CrPC or any other cognate legislation. The concept of decency of each human being is likely to be different. The idea of decency keeps on changing with time. As the term ‘decency’ is not defined in the CrPC or any other cognate legislation, every person or authority may interpret the same differently. Therefore, such a condition while granting remission becomes too subjective. Putting such a vague condition while exercising the power under sub section (1) of Section 432 of the CrPC will give a tool in the hands of the executive to cancel the remission at its whims and fancies. Therefore, such a condition is arbitrary and will be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such a condition cannot be imposed as it will defeat the very object of remitting the sentence in the exercise of powers under sub section (1) of Section 432 of the CrPC. (Para 13)

Constitution of India – Article 226– The convict can always challenge the order of cancellation of remission by adopting a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 15)

Shyam Narayan Ram vs State Of UP 2024 INSC 800 – S 294 IPC – Formal Proof Of Documents

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 294– Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. That is to say that if the authors of such documents does not enter the witness box to prove their signatures, the said documents could still be read in evidence. Further, under the proviso the Court has the jurisdiction in its discretion to require such signature to be proved. In the present case, the documents filed by the investigating agency were all public documents duly signed by public servants in their respective capacities either as Investigating Officer or the doctor conducting the autopsy or other police officials preparing the memo of recoveries etc. (Para 15)

Asim Akhtar vs State Of West Bengal 2024 INSC 794 – S 319 CrPC – Cross Examination

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 319 –Is it mandatory to decide the application under section 319 CrPC before conducting cross-examination and only on the basis of examination-in-chief? The Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab does not take away the discretion of the Trial Court to wait for the crossexamination to take place before deciding the application under section 319 CrPC. It merely provides that consideration of such an application should not be a mini trial. It is for the Trial Court to decide whether the application should be decided without waiting for the crossexamination to take place or to wait for it. The same would depend upon the satisfaction of the Trial Court on the basis of the material placed on record- The complicity of any person sought to be arrayed as an accused can be decided with or without conducting cross-examination of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses, and there is no mandate to decide the application under section 319 CrPC before crossexamination of other witnesses. (Para 13-17)

Criminal Trial –The role of the complainant in a trial does not permit it to act as a Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. The complainant and

Harshad Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2024 INSC 776 – S 235 CrPC – Conviction & Sentencing

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 235 –A judgment of conviction shall have two components; namely, (i) Judgment on the point of conviction; and (ii) Where the accused is convicted, a separate order of sentence to be passed according to law, after hearing the accused on the question of sentence- Once the judgment of conviction is delivered, the accused has a right to be heard on the quantum of the sentence- Various relevant factors, including mitigating circumstances, if any, are to be kept in mind by the Court while awarding an adequate and proportionate sentence- In this case, the accused was held guilty and convicted vide judgment pronounced on 30.04.2015- Before he could be heard on the quantum of the sentence, the accused moved an application to exempt him from personal appearance on the ground that he had met with an accident. In view of that application, the matter was adjourned on a few occasions to enable the accused to recover from the accident.In the meanwhile, the Presiding Officer of the Court,, who had convicted him, was transferred – A new Presiding Officer was posted in his place. The question raised in this appeal is whether the new Presiding Officer was obligated not only to hear the accused on the question of sentence but also on the point of conviction? SC Held: The process and procedure contemplated under Section 235(2) cannot annul the judgment of conviction recorded under sub-section (1) thereof. Both clauses operate in their respective fields, though sub-section (2) is contingent upon the outcome under sub-section (1) of Section 235. The occasion to comply with subsection (2) arises only when there is a judgment of conviction passed under Section 235(1) of the Cr.PC -Once the judgment was pronounced, the conviction of the appellant stood finalized within the meaning of Section 235(1) whereupon the Trial Court became functus officio for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 235 of the Cr.P.C. The only issue that survived thereafter was of the quantum of sentence for which, the procedure contemplated under sub-section (2) was to be complied with-The successor officer should therefore hear the appellant on the question of sentence and pass an appropriate order.

Somjeet Mallick vs State Of Jharkhand 2024 INSC 772 – S 482 CrPC – Quashing FIR – Mens Rea

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 482 –A petition to quash the FIR does not become infructuous on submission of a police report under Section 173 (2) of the CrPC- But when a police report has been submitted, particularly when there is no stay on the investigation, the Court must apply its mind to the materials submitted in support of the police report before taking a call whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed or not – At the stage of deciding whether a criminal proceeding or FIR, as the case may be, is to be quashed at the threshold or not, the allegations in the FIR or the police report or the complaint, including the materials collected during investigation or inquiry, as the case may be, are to be taken at their face value so as to determine whether a prima facie case for investigation or proceeding against the accused, as the case may be, is made out. The correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at this stage- FIR is not an encyclopedia of all imputations. Therefore, to test whether an FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence what is to be looked at is not any omission in the accusations but the gravamen of the accusations contained therein to find out whether, prima facie, some cognizable offence has been committed or not. At this stage, the Court is not required to ascertain as to which specific offence has been committed. It is only after investigation, at the time of framing charge, when materials collected during investigation are before the Court, the Court has to draw an opinion as to for commission of which offence the accused should be tried. Prior to that, if satisfied, the Court may even discharge the accused. Thus, when the FIR alleges a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused which, if supported by materials, would disclose commission of a cognizable offence, investigation should not be thwarted by quashing the FIR. (Para 16-19)

Mens Rea – To commit an offence, unless the penal statute provides otherwise, mens rea is one of the essential ingredients. Existence of mens rea is a question of fact which may be inferred from the act in question as well as the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused. (Para 17)

Nipun Aneja vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2024 INSC 767-S 306 IPC – S 482 CrPC – Abetment Of Suicide – Quashing

Indian Penal Code,1860 –Section 306 [Section 108 of BNS,2023]-The basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof -The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. Further, as the extreme action of committing suicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided First, where the deceased is having sentimental ties or physical relations with the accused and the second category would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity. In the case of former category sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange of words may result into immediate psychological imbalance, consequently creating a situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if the person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may give temptations to the person to commit suicide, e.g., when there is relation of husband and wife, mother and son, brother and sister, sister and sister and other relations of such type, where sentimental tie is by blood or due to physical relations. In the case of second category the tie is on account of official relations, where the expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in law. In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie cannot be equated with the official relationship. The reason being different nature of conduct to maintain that relationship. The former category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category, by and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations. (Para 14- 21)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 – Abetment of suicide cases -The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide. Over a period of time, the trend of the courts is that such intention can be read into or gathered only after a fullfledged trial. The problem is that the courts just look into the factum of suicide and nothing more. We believe that such understanding on the part of the courts is wrong. It all depends on the nature of the offence & accusation. For example, whether the accused had the common intention under Section 34 of the IPC could be gathered only after a full-fledged trial on the basis of the depositions of the witnesses as regards the genesis of the occurrence, the manner of assault, the weapon used, the role played by the accused etc. However, in cases of abetment of suicide by and large the facts make things clear more particularly from the nature of the allegations itself. The Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of law governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record. It is the inability on the part of the courts to understand and apply the correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary prosecutions. We do understand and appreciate the feelings and sentiments of the family members of the deceased and we cannot find any fault on their part if they decide to lodge a First Information Report with the police. However, it is ultimately for the police and the courts of law to look into the matter and see that the persons against whom allegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not put to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them. (Para 22)

Summary: Allowing appeal filed by accused in an abetment to suicide case, the Supreme Court observed: putting the appellants to trial on the charge that they abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased will be nothing but abuse of process of law. In our opinion, no case worth the name against the appellants is made out.

Ranjeet Mittal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 766 – S 482 CrPC – Quashing Of Criminal Charges

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 – Section 482 -For quashing of criminal charges it must be shown that there is no sufficient evidence to prove a prima facie case against the accused person/s. [In this case, there are statements by witnesses indicating abuse and torture of deceased by her in-laws and other factual circumstances- Therefore prima facie case is made against the accused persons- The High Court erred in quashing the order of trial court framing charges]

Rama Devi vs State Of Bihar 2024 INSC 755 – Delay In Forwarding FIR – S. 161 Statements

Code of Criminal Procedure ,1973- Section 154– When there is a delay in forwarding the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate and the accused raises a specific contention regarding the same, they must demonstrate how this delay has prejudiced their case. Mere delay by itself is not sufficient to discard and disbelieve the case of the prosecution. If the investigation starts in right earnest and there is sufficient material on record to show that the accused were named and pinpointed, the prosecution case can be accepted when evidence implicates the accused. The requirement to dispatch and serve a copy of the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate is an external check against ante dating or ante timing of the FIR to ensure that there is no manipulation or interpolation in the FIR. If the court finds the witnesses to be truthful and credible, the lack of a cogent explanation for the delay may not be regarded as detrimental. (Para 30)

Code of Criminal Procedure ,1973- Section 161– Statements under Section 161 CrPC are per se not evidence in the court. (Para 31)

Tarina Sen vs Union Of India 2024 INSC 752 – S 482 CrPC – Quashing Of Criminal Cases With Civil Character

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 –In the matters arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, the High Court should exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC for giving an end to the criminal proceedings – The possibility of conviction in such cases is remote and bleak and as such, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice. (Para 15)

K Bharthi Devi vs State Of Telangana 2024 INSC 750 – S 482 CrPC – Quashing Of Criminal Cases With Civil Character

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. (Para 31)

K Vadivel vs K Shanthi 2024 INSC 746 – CrPC – Further Investigation – Speedy Justice 

Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973- Section 173(8)- Where fresh materials come to light which would implicate persons not previously accused or absolve persons already accused or where it comes to the notice of the investigating agency that a person already accused of an offence has a good alibi, it may be the duty of the investigating agency to investigate the genuineness of the same and submit a report to the court-However, the further investigation cannot be permitted to do a fishing and roving enquiry when the police had already filed a charge-sheet. (Para 32-33)

Criminal Trial -Speedy Justice - The victims of crime, the accused, and the society at large have a legitimate expectation that justice will be available to the parties within a reasonable time. It is beyond cavil that speedy and timely justice is an important facet of rule of law. Denial of speedy and timely justice can be disastrous to rule of law in the long term. Even if the parties involved in a case themselves, with no valid justification attempt to delay the proceedings, the courts need to be vigilant and nip any such attempt in the bud instantly. The administration of justice feeds on the faith of the citizenry and nothing should be done to even remotely shake that faith and confidence. (Para 45)- The legal profession has an important role to play in the process. Any proceeding or application which prima facie lacks merit should not be instituted in a court. (Para 46)

K Vadivel vs K Shanthi 2024 INSC 746 – CrPC – Further Investigation – Speedy Justice 

Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973- Section 173(8)- Where fresh materials come to light which would implicate persons not previously accused or absolve persons already accused or where it comes to the notice of the investigating agency that a person already accused of an offence has a good alibi, it may be the duty of the investigating agency to investigate the genuineness of the same and submit a report to the court-However, the further investigation cannot be permitted to do a fishing and roving enquiry when the police had already filed a charge-sheet. (Para 32-33)

Criminal Trial -Speedy Justice - The victims of crime, the accused, and the society at large have a legitimate expectation that justice will be available to the parties within a reasonable time. It is beyond cavil that speedy and timely justice is an important facet of rule of law. Denial of speedy and timely justice can be disastrous to rule of law in the long term. Even if the parties involved in a case themselves, with no valid justification attempt to delay the proceedings, the courts need to be vigilant and nip any such attempt in the bud instantly. The administration of justice feeds on the faith of the citizenry and nothing should be done to even remotely shake that faith and confidence. (Para 45)- The legal profession has an important role to play in the process. Any proceeding or application which prima facie lacks merit should not be instituted in a court. (Para 46)

Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo vs State Of Punjab 2024 INSC 738 – S 34,149 IPC – Ss 464 CrPC 

Indian Penal Code,1860- Section 34 [BNS 2023- Section 3(5)]- There cannot be a fixed timeframe for formation of common intention. It is not essential for the perpetrators to have had prior meetings to conspire or make preparations for the crime. Common intention to commit murder can arise even moments before the commission of the act. Since common intention is a mental state of the perpetrators, it is inherently challenging to substantiate directly. Instead, it can be inferred from the conduct of the perpetrators immediately before, during, and after the commission of the act. (Para 19)

Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973- Section 464(2) [BNSS 2023- Section 510]-In order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned, it will be relevant to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself- the burden to show that in fact a failure of justice has been occasioned is on the accused. (Para 25)

Indian Penal Code,1860- Section 34,149 [BNS 2023- Section 3(5),190]-Common intention and common object- Both the sections deal with combinations of persons who become punishable as sharers in an offence. Thus, they have a certain resemblance and may to some extent overlap - If the common object does not necessarily involve a common intention, then the substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 might result in prejudice to the accused and ought not, therefore, to be permitted. But if it does involve a common intention then the substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 must be held to be a formal matter. Whether such recourse can be had or not must depend on the facts of each case. The non-applicability of Section 149 is, therefore, no bar in convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, if the evidence discloses commission of an offence in furtherance of the common intention of them all - Referred to Chittarmal vs. State of Rajasthan (2003) 2 SCC 266. (Para 21-22)

Criminal Trial -The sworn testimonies provided by injured witnesses generally carry significant evidentiary weight. Such testimonies cannot be dismissed as unreliable unless there are pellucid and substantial discrepancies or contradictions that undermine their credibility. If there is any exaggeration in the deposition that is immaterial to the case, such exaggeration should be disregarded- however, it does not warrant the rejection of the entire evidence. (Para 12) -Examination of independent witness is not an indispensable requisite if the testimonies of other witnesses are deemed trustworthy and reliable. 


Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo vs State Of Punjab 2024 INSC 738 – S 34,149 IPC – Ss 464 CrPC 

Indian Penal Code,1860- Section 34 [BNS 2023- Section 3(5)]- There cannot be a fixed timeframe for formation of common intention. It is not essential for the perpetrators to have had prior meetings to conspire or make preparations for the crime. Common intention to commit murder can arise even moments before the commission of the act. Since common intention is a mental state of the perpetrators, it is inherently challenging to substantiate directly. Instead, it can be inferred from the conduct of the perpetrators immediately before, during, and after the commission of the act. (Para 19)

Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973- Section 464(2) [BNSS 2023- Section 510]-In order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned, it will be relevant to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself- the burden to show that in fact a failure of justice has been occasioned is on the accused. (Para 25)

Indian Penal Code,1860- Section 34,149 [BNS 2023- Section 3(5),190]-Common intention and common object- Both the sections deal with combinations of persons who become punishable as sharers in an offence. Thus, they have a certain resemblance and may to some extent overlap - If the common object does not necessarily involve a common intention, then the substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 might result in prejudice to the accused and ought not, therefore, to be permitted. But if it does involve a common intention then the substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 must be held to be a formal matter. Whether such recourse can be had or not must depend on the facts of each case. The non-applicability of Section 149 is, therefore, no bar in convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, if the evidence discloses commission of an offence in furtherance of the common intention of them all - Referred to Chittarmal vs. State of Rajasthan (2003) 2 SCC 266. (Para 21-22)

Criminal Trial -The sworn testimonies provided by injured witnesses generally carry significant evidentiary weight. Such testimonies cannot be dismissed as unreliable unless there are pellucid and substantial discrepancies or contradictions that undermine their credibility. If there is any exaggeration in the deposition that is immaterial to the case, such exaggeration should be disregarded- however, it does not warrant the rejection of the entire evidence. (Para 12) -Examination of independent witness is not an indispensable requisite if the testimonies of other witnesses are deemed trustworthy and reliable. 


Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel vs State Of Maharashtra 2024 INSC 737 – S 482 CrPC

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482-There is no prohibition against quashing of the criminal proceedings even after the charge sheet has been filed.- Referred to Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019) 11 SCC 706. (Para 16)

Summary: High Court refused to quash the FIR- Allowing appeal, SC observed: The provocation for the Complaint/FIR is essentially the property dispute between father and son. Further, the rights and claims in the suit are the very basis and provocation for filing the criminal cases. The Complaint/FIR is replete with just one theme i.e. that the appellants are threatening them that they will deny share in the property. The Complaint/FIR is intended only to further their interest of the civil dispute- none of the ingredients of Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC are made out.

Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kr. Sharma vs State Of Bihar 2024 INSC 735 – Criminal Trial – Appeal Against Acquittal – Murder Conviction Set Aside

Criminal Trial -A post mortem report is generally not considered as conclusive evidence of the facts mentioned in the re-port regarding the cause of death, time of death etc. It could always be corroborated with other direct evidence on record such as ocular evidence of the eye witnesses. However, when there is no other credible evidence on record to contradict the report, the facts stated in the post mortem report are generally taken as true (Para 30)- in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete and must give out an inescapable conclusion of guilt - motive has a bearing only when the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the ingredients of the offences under consideration. Without the proof of foundational facts, the case of the prosecution cannot succeed on the presence of motive alone(Para 35)-Ordinarily, there is no rule of law to discard the testimonies of the witnesses merely be-cause they were known to the victim or belonged to her family. For, an offence may be committed in circumstances that only the family members are present at the place of occurrence in natural course.(Para 24) -Motive has a bearing only when the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the ingredients of the offences under consideration. Without the proof of foundational facts, the case of the prosecution cannot succeed on the presence of motive alone. (Para 35)

Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973- Section 378- In order to reverse a finding of acquittal, a higher threshold is required. For, the presumption of innocence operating in favour of an accused through-out the trial gets concretized with a finding of acquittal by the Trial Court. Thus, such a finding could not be reversed merely because the possibility of an alternate view was alive. Rather, the view taken by the Trial Court must be held to be completely unsustainable and not a probable view. (Para 32)

Fuleshwar Gope vs Union Of India 2024 INSC 718- UAPA- Sanction

UAPA,1967- Section 45 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation & Sanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008- Rules 3 & 4-The validity of sanction should be challenged at the earliest instance available, before the Trial Court. If such a challenge is raised at an appellate stage it would be for the person raising the challenge to justify the reasons for bringing the same at a belated stage. Such reasons would have to be considered independently so as to ensure that there is no misuse of the right of challenge with the aim to stall or delay proceedings- The rules provide a seven day period within which the concerned authority is to make its recommendation on the basis of materials gathered by the investigating officer and a further seven days period for the government to grant sanction for prosecution, having considered the report of the authority- These timelines are couched in mandatory language and, therefore, have to be strictly followed. This is keeping in view that UAPA being a penal legislation, strict construction must be accorded to it. Timelines imposed by way of statutory Rules are a way to keep a check on executive power which is a necessary position to protect the rights of accused persons. Independent review by both the authority recommending sanction and the authority granting sanction, are necessary aspects of compliance with Section 45 of the UAPA. (Para 51)

UAPA,1967- Section 22A - For Section 22A to apply :- (a) offence has to committed by a company- (b) all persons who at the time of the offence were in control of, or responsible for, the company’s affairs shall be deemed guilty- (c) such person would be saved from guilt as under (b) if they can demonstrate that such act was (i) not in their knowledge- (ii) they had taken reasonable care to prevent such offence from taking place. The section further provides that if it can be proved that the offence committed by the company was (1) with consent- (2) in connivance of- (3) attributable to neglect on the part of any promoter, director, manager, secretary or any other officer of the company, then they shall be held guilt- Whether or not the exemption under Section 22A applies is a matter to be established by the way of evidence for the person claiming such exemption has to demonstrate that either he was not in charge of the affairs of the company which has allegedly committed the offence, or that he had made reasonable efforts to prevent the commission of the offence. This, once again, is a matter for the Trial Court to consider and not for this Court to decide at this stage, keeping in view that the trial is underway and proceeded substantially. (Para 52)

Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973- Section 223- As the provision itself mandates that no finding, sanction or order by a court of competent jurisdiction becomes invalid unless it is so that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned because of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including in misjoinder of charge, obviously, the burden is on the accused to show that in fact a failure of justice has been occasioned.- State of U.P. v. Paras Nath Singh 6 (2009) 6 SCC 372 (Para 46,52)

Administrative Law -An order passed by an administrative authority is not to be tested by way of judicial review on the same anvil as a judicial or quasi-judicial order. While it is imperative for the latter to record reasons for arriving at a particular decision, for the former it is sufficient to show that the authority passing such order applied its mind to the relevant facts and materials. (Para 41)

Just Rights For Children Alliance vs S Harish 2024 INSC 716 – POCSO – IT Act – Child Pornography

POCSO Act, 2012- Section 15- Wherever a person indulges in any activity such as viewing, distributing or displaying etc. pertaining to any child pornographic material without actually possessing or storing it in any device or in any form or manner, such act would still tantamount to ‘possession’ in terms of Section 15 of the POCSO, if he exercised an invariable degree of control over such material, applying the aforesaid doctrine of constructive possession. If ‘A’ routinely watches child pornography over the internet, but never downloads or stores the same in his mobile. Here ‘A’ would still be said to be in possession of such material, as while watching he exercises a considerable degree of control over such material including but not limited to sharing, deleting, enlarging such material, changing the volume etc. Furthermore, since he himself on his own volition is viewing such material, he is said to have knowledge of having control over such material. But if ‘A’ is sent an unknown link by ‘B’, which upon clicking opened a child pornographic video on the phone of ‘A’. Here although ‘A’ at the time of opening the link had control over the said link, yet he cannot be said to have a knowledge of that control over such material as he at that relevant point of time was unaware as to what would open from the said link- thus ‘A’ cannot be said to be in possession. This is because, ‘A’ had no information as to what the link pertained to, in order to have knowledge of control over such material, a person requires reasonable information such as what is involved in the material in question, what is the purpose of such material, etc. Without such information no person can decide whether he wants to view it, or delete it or further forward it i.e., he cannot effectively exercise the control that he has, without a certain degree of knowledge. However, if ‘A’ rather than closing the link in a reasonable time, continues to view such material he would be deemed to be in possession of such material. This is because, after a reasonable window of time, he would be said to have sufficient information about such material to have knowledge for the effective exercise of his control over such material. (Para 118-121)

POCSO Act, 2012- Section 15- Section 15 of the POCSO provides for three distinct offences that penalize either the storage or the possession of any child pornographic material when done with any particular intention specified under subsection(s) (1), (2) or (3) respectively. It is in the nature and form of an inchoate offence which penalizes the mere storage or possession of any pornographic material involving a child when done with a specific intent prescribed thereunder, without requiring any actual transmission, dissemination etc. (II) Sub-section (1) of Section 15 penalizes the failure to delete, destroy or report any child pornographic material that has been found to be stored or in possession of any person with an intention to share or transmit the same. The mens-rea or the intention required under this provision is to be gathered from the actus reus itself i.e., it must be determined from the manner in which such material is stored or possessed and the circumstances in which the same was not deleted, destroyed or reported. To constitute an offence under this provision the circumstances must sufficiently indicate the intention on the part of the accused to share or transmit such material. (III) Section 15 sub-section (2) penalizes both the actual transmission, propagation, display or distribution of any child pornography as-well as the facilitation of any of the abovementioned acts. To constitute an offence under Section 15 sub-section (2) apart from the storage or possession of such pornographic material, there must be something more to show i.e., either (I) the actual transmission, propagation, display or distribution of such material OR (II) the facilitation of any transmission, propagation, display or distribution of such material, such as any form of preparation or setup done that would enable that person to transmit it or to display it. The mens rea is to be gathered from the manner in which the pornographic material was found to be stored or in possession and any other material apart from such possession or storage that is indicative of any facilitation or actual transmission, propagation, display or distribution of such material. (IV) Section 15 sub-section (3) penalizes the storage or possession of any child pornographic material when done for any commercial purpose. To establish an offence under Section 15 sub-section (3), besides the storage or possession of the pornographic material involving a child, there must be some additional material or attending circumstances that may sufficiently indicate that the said storage or possession was done with the intent to derive any gain or benefit. To constitute an offence under sub-section (3) there is no requirement to establish that such gain or benefit had been actually realized- Sub-section(s) (1), (2) and (3) respectively of Section 15 constitute independent and distinct offences. The three offences cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts. They are distinct from each other and are not intertwined. This is because, the underlying distinction between the three sub-sections of Section 15 lies in the varying degree of culpable mens rea that is required under each of the three provisions. (Para 223-I-V)

POCSO Act, 2012- Section 30- The statutory presumption of culpable mental state on the part of the accused as envisaged under Section 30 of the POCSO can be made applicable provided the prosecution is able to establish the foundational facts necessary to constitute a particular offence under the POCSO that may have been alleged against the accused. Such presumption can be rebutted by the accused either by discrediting the prosecution’s case or by leading evidence to prove the contrary, beyond a reasonable doubt.(Para 222) The foundational facts necessary for the purpose of invoking the statutory presumption of culpable mental state for an offence under Section 15 of POCSO are as follows: - (a) For the purpose of sub-section (1), the necessary foundational facts that the prosecution may have to first establish is the storage or possession of any child pornographic material and that the person accused had failed to delete, destroy or report the same. (b) In order to invoke the statutory presumption of culpable mental state for an offence under sub-section (2) the prosecution would be required to first establish the storage or possession of any child pornographic material, and also any other fact to indicate either the actual transmission, propagation, display or distribution of any such material or any form of an overt act such as preparation or setup done for the facilitation of the transmission, propagation, display or distribution of such material, whereafter it shall be presumed by the court that the said act was done with the intent of transmitting, displaying, propagating or distributing such material and that the said act(s) had not been done for the purpose of either reporting or for use as evidence. (c) For the purpose of sub-section (3) the prosecution must establish the storage or possession of such material and further prove any fact that might indicate that the same had been done to derive some form of gain or benefit or the expectation of some gain or benefit. (Para 223-X,XI)

Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973- Section 482 - POCSO Act, 2012- Section 30 - The statutory presumption of culpable mental under Section 30 of POCSO can be made applicable in a quashing proceeding pertaining to any offence under the POCSO.(Para 222)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 - High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section(s) 482 of the Cr.P.C. or 530 of the BNSS as the case must not conduct a mini trial or go into the truthfulness of the allegations while dealing with a quashing petition. The High Court may be justified in quashing the chargesheet if it appears to it that continuance of criminal proceedings would be nothing but gross abuse of the process of law. (Para 197) When dealing with a quashing petition, there lies a duty on the High Court to properly apply its mind to all the material on record. The least which is expected of High Court in such situation is to carefully go through the allegations contained in the FIR and the charge-sheet, and to ascertain (i) whether, the offences alleged therein could be said to have been prima facie established from the material on record? or (ii) whether, apart from the offences alleged in the FIR or the charge-sheet, there is possibility of any other offence prima facie being made out? The High Court in exercise of its inherent powers, may be justified in quashing the criminal proceedings only where, neither any offence as alleged in the FIR or charge-sheet is disclosed nor any other offence is prima facie made out, and the continuance of the proceedings may be found to amount to abuse of process of law. (Para 202)

Criminal Trial -Four-prong test wherein for a valid defence, there must exist (1) an ignorance or unawareness of any law and (2) such ignorance or unawareness must give rise to a corresponding reasonable and legitimate right or claim (3) the existence of such right or claim must be believed bonafide and (4) the purported act sought to be punished must take place on the strength of such right or claim. It is only when all the four of the above conditions are fulfilled, that the person would be entitled to take a plea of ignorance of law as a defence from incurring any liability -Such a plea is not a statutory defence with any legal backing, but rather a by-product of the doctrine of equity. Whether such a defence is to be accepted or not, largely depends upon the extant of equity in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each individual cases- Equity cannot supplant the law, equity has to follow the law if the law is clear and unambiguous. (Para 211,215)

Ramesh vs State Of Karnataka 2024 INSC 701 – CrPC – Appeal Against Acquittal

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 378,386 [BNSS, 2013- Sections 419,427]- The power of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against a judgment of acquittal -(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court - It would be essential for the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly indicate firm and weighty grounds from the record for discarding the reasons of the Trial Court in order to be able to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt of the accused- It would not be legally sufficient for the High Court to take a contrary view about the credibility of witnesses and it is absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject their testimony.

A.S. Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs Nayati Medical Pvt. Ltd. 2024 INSC 690 – Ss 138,147 NI Act – S 482 CrPC – Compounding Of Cheque Bounce Cases

Negotiable Instruments Act,1881- Section 138,147 -An offence under Section 138, N.I. Act could be compounded under Section 147 thereof, only with the consent of the complainant concerned’ . (Para 17)

Code of Criminal Procedure,1973- Section 482 - Merely because, in Raj Reddy Kallem v. The State of Haryana & Anr. 2024 INSC 347, SC ‘quashed’ the proceedings by invocation of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, cannot be a reason for ‘compounding’ an offence under Section 138, N.I. Act, invoking the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and the power under Section 147, N.I. Act, in the absence of consent of the complainant concerned. (Para 18)

Raghuveer Sharan vs District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank 2024 INSC 681 – S 132 Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 132 [BNSS,2023- Section 137]- The qualified privilege under the proviso to Section 132 of the Act does not grant complete immunity from prosecution to a person who has deposed as a witness (and made statements incriminating himself)- The only protection available is, a witness cannot be subjected to prosecution on the basis of his own statement. It nowhere provides that there is complete and unfettered immunity to a person even if there is other substantial evidence or material against him proving his prima facie involvement. If this complete immunity is read under the proviso to Section 132 of the Act, an influential person with the help of a dishonest Investigating Officer will provide a legal shield to him by examining him as a witness even though his complicity in the offence is writ large on the basis of the material available in the case. (Para 20-25) -No prosecution can be launched against the maker of a statement falling within the sweep of Section 132 of the Act on the basis of the “answer” given by a person while deposing as a “witness” before a Court - Referred to R. Dinesh Kumar alias Deena v. State (2015) 7 SCC 497 (Para 16) -Section 132 of the Act is a necessary corollary to the principle enshrined under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India which confers a fundamental right that “no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”-The purpose for granting such a statutory immunity was to enable the court to reach a just conclusion (and thus assisting the process of law). (Para 14-15)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 319- What is the course available to a Court, which in the course of trial is confronted with evidence, other than the statement of the witness (against whom incriminating material is available)? Whether the Court can rely upon the statement of the witness for invoking the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C? Whether reference to any statement tendered by the witness would vitiate the order under Section 319 Cr.P.C? There cannot be an absolute embargo on the Trial Court to initiate process under Section 319 Cr.P.C., merely because a person, who though appears to be complicit has deposed as a witness. The finding to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C., must be based on the evidence that has come up during the course of Trial. There must be additional, cogent material before the Trial Court apart from the statement of the witness. An order for initiation of process under Section 319 Cr.P.C against a witness, who has deposed in the trial and has tendered evidence incriminating himself, would be tested on the anvil that whether only such incriminating statement has formed the basis of the order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. At the same time, mere reference to such statement would not vitiate the order. The test would be as to whether, even if the statement of witness is removed from consideration, whether on the basis of other incriminating material, the Court could have proceeded under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (Para 21-22)

Devendra Kumar Pal vs State Of UP 2024 INSC 679 – S 319 CrPC

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 319- The order of conviction in the case of some of the accused and the order of acquittal in the case of the other accused was passed in the first half of the day. In the second half, the Court first passed an order for sentencing of the persons who were convicted and only thereafter passed an order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for summoning the present appellant- if such a summoning order is passed, either after the order of acquittal or imposing of sentence in the conviction, the same may not be sustainable- Followed Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab [2022] 10 S.C.R. 156:: 2022 INSC 1252

Beena vs Charan Das (D) 2024 INSC 680

Summary: Tenancy Dispute' - Allowing appeal, SC observed: High Court had patently erred in interpreting the consent order and in reversing the well-considered judgments and orders of the court of first instance and the First Appellate Court, dismissing the suit of the tenant.

Dhanraj Aswani vs Amar S. Mulchandani 2024 INSC 669 – Anticipatory Bail

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 438 - [BNSS,2023- Section 482]- An accused is entitled to seek anticipatory bail in connection with an offence so long as he is not arrested in relation to that offence. Once he is arrested, the only remedy available to him is to apply for regular bail either under Section 437 or Section 439 of the CrPC, as the case may be- There is no express or implied restriction in the CrPC or in any other statute that prohibits the Court of Session or the High Court from entertaining and deciding an anticipatory bail application in relation to an offence, while the applicant is in custody in relation to a different offence. No restriction can be read into Section 438 of the CrPC to preclude an accused from applying for anticipatory bail in relation to an offence while he is in custody in a different offence, as that would be against the purport of the provision and the intent of the legislature. The only restriction on the power of the court to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC is the one prescribed under sub-section (4) of Section 438 of the CrPC, and in other statutes like the Act, 1989, etc- While a person already in custody in connection with a particular offence apprehends arrest in a different offence, then, the subsequent offence is a separate offence for all practical purposes. This would necessarily imply that all rights conferred by the statute on the accused as well as the investigating agency in relation to the subsequent offence are independently protected - The investigating agency, if it deems necessary for the purpose of interrogation/investigation in an offence, can seek remand of the accused whilst he is in custody in connection with a previous offence so long as no order granting anticipatory bail has been passed in relation to the subsequent offence. However, if an order granting anticipatory bail in relation to the subsequent offence is obtained by the accused, it shall no longer be open to the investigating agency to seek remand of the accused in relation to the subsequent offence. Similarly, if an order of police remand is passed before the accused is able to obtain anticipatory bail, it would thereafter not be open to the accused to seek anticipatory bail and the only option available to him would be to seek regular bail- The right of an accused to protect his personal liberty within the contours of Article 21 of the Constitution of India with the aid of the provision of anticipatory bail as enshrined under Section 438 of the CrPC cannot be defeated or thwarted without a valid procedure established by law- Such procedure should also pass the test of fairness, reasonableness and manifest non-arbitrariness on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Under Section 438 of the CrPC, the pre-condition for a person to apply for pre-arrest bail is a “reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence”. Therefore, the only pre-condition for exercising the said right is the apprehension of the accused that he is likely to be arrested- custody in one case does not have the effect of taking away the apprehension of arrest in a different case -(Para 60) -Distinguished Narinderjit Singh Sahni v. Union of India, [2001] Supp. 4 SCR 114, (2002) 2 SCC 210 :

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 46- Arrest involves actual touch or confinement of the body of the person sought to be arrested. However, arrest can also be effected without actual touch if the person sought to be arrested submits to the custody by words or action-The actual seizing or touching of the body of the person to be arrested is not necessary in a case where the arrester by word brings to the notice of the accused that he is under compulsion and thereafter the accused submits to that compulsion. This is in conformity with the modality of the arrest contemplated under Section 46 of the CrPC wherein also it is provided that the submission of a person to be arrested to the custody of the arrester by word or action can amount to an arrest. The essence is: There must be an actual seizing or touching, and in the absence of that, it must be brought to the notice of the person to be arrested that he is under compulsion, and as a result of such notice, the said person should submit to that compulsion, and then only the arrest is consummated. (Para 46-51)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 267-Although Section 267 of the CrPC cannot be invoked to enable production of the accused before the investigating agency, yet it can undoubtedly be invoked to require production of the accused before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who can thereafter remand him to the custody of the investigating agency. (Para 52)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 438 - [BNSS,2023- Section 482]- Principles of law as regards the grant of anticipatory bail summarized - Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, [1980] 3 SCR 383, (1980) 2 SCC 565: i. The applicant must genuinely show the “reason to believe” that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. Mere fear is not belief and the grounds on which the belief of the applicant is based must be capable of being examined by the Court objectively. Specific events and facts must be disclosed to enable the Court to judge the reasonableness of belief or likelihood of arrest, the existence of which is the sine qua non in the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. ii. The High Court or the Court of Session must apply its mind to the question of anticipatory bail and should not leave it to the discretion of the Magistrate under Section 437 CrPC. iii. Filing of the FIR is not a condition precedent. However, imminence of a likely arrest founded on the reasonable belief must be shown. iv. Anticipatory bail can be granted so long as the applicant is not arrested in connection with that case/offence. v. Section 438 of the CrPC cannot be invoked by the accused in respect of the offence(s)/case in which he has been arrested. The remedy lies under Section 437 or 439 of the CrPC, as the case may be, for the offence for which he is arrested. vi. The normal rule is to not limit the operation of the order in relation to a period of time. (Para 32) -Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), [2020] 2 SCR 1, (2020) 5 SCC 1: i. An application for anticipatory bail should be based on concrete facts (and not vague or general allegations). It is not essential that an application should be moved only after an FIR is filed. ii. It is advisable to issue a notice on the anticipatory bail application to the Public Prosecutor. iii. Nothing in Section 438 of the CrPC compels or obliges courts to impose conditions limiting relief in terms of time. The courts would be justified – and ought to impose conditions spelt out in Section 437(3) of the CrPC [by virtue of Section 438(2)]. The need to impose other restrictive conditions would have to be judged on a case-tocase basis. iv. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not. v. Once granted, Anticipatory bail can, depending on the conduct and behaviour of the accused, continue after filing of the chargesheet till the end of trial. vi. An order of anticipatory bail should not be a “blanket” order and should be confined to a specific incident. vii. An order of anticipatory bail does not limit the rights of the police to conduct investigation. viii. The observations in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra) regarding “limited custody” or “deemed custody” would be sufficient for the purpose of fulfilling the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. ix. The police can seek cancellation of anticipatory bail under Section 439(2) of the CrPC. x. The correctness of an order granting bail can be considered by the appellate or superior court. - The court, on its own, should not try to read any other restriction as regards the exercise of its power to consider the plea for grant of anticipatory bail. Wherever parliament intends or desires to exclude or restrict the power of courts, it does so in categorical terms. This is very much evident from the plain reading of sub-section (4) of Section 438 of the CrPC itself. The dictum as laid is that the court should not read any blanket restriction nor should it insist for some inflexible guidelines as that would amount to judicial legislation. (Para 35-36)

Abhishek Banerjee vs Directorate Of Enforcement 2024 INSC 668 – PMLA – CrPC

Prevention of Money Laundering Act,2002 -Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973- Chapter XII- The provisions of Chapter XII of the Code (under which Section 160 falls) do not apply in all respects to deal with information derived relating to the commission of money laundering offence much less investigation thereof - The dispensation regarding Prevention of Money Laundering, Attachment of Proceeds of Crime, and Inquiry/Investigation of offence of Money Laundering including issuing summons, recording of statements, calling upon persons for production of documents etc. upto filing of the Complaint in respect of offence under Section 3 of PMLA is fully governed by the provisions of the said Act itself. The jurisdictional police who is governed by the regime of Chapter XII of the Code, can not register the offence of money laundering, nor can investigate into it, in view of the special procedure prescribed under the PMLA with regard to the registration of offence and inquiry/investigation thereof, and that the special procedure must prevail in terms of Section 71 of the PMLA- Specific procedure prescribed under the Statutory Rules of 2005 for summoning the person under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 50 of the Act, the same would prevail over any other procedure prescribed under the Code, particularly the procedure contemplated in Section 160/161, as also the procedure for production of documents contemplated in Section 91 of the Code, in view of the overriding effect given to the PMLA over the other Acts including the Cr.P.C. under Section 71 r/w Section 65 of the PMLA.

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 20(3)- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 50-Section 50 enables the authorized Authority to issue summon to any person whose attendance he considers necessary for giving evidence or to produce any records during the course of the proceedings under the Act, and that the persons so summoned is bound to attend in person or through authorized agent, and to state truth upon the subject concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make statement and produce documents as may be required by virtue of subsection (3) of Section 50. At the stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, the same being not “testimonial compulsion”. At the stage of recording of statement of a person for the purpose of inquiring into the relevant facts in connection with the property being proceeds of crime, is not an investigation for prosecution as such. The summons can be issued even to witnesses in the inquiry so conducted by the authorized officers. The consequences of Article 20(3) of the Constitution or Section 25 of the Evidence Act may come into play only if the involvement of such person (noticee) is revealed and his or her statements is recorded after a formal arrest by the ED official. (Para 19) - Referred to Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India [2022] 6 S.C.R. 382 :: 2022 INSC 757.

Suraj Singh Gujar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 661 – Article 142 – Compounding

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 142 - Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 320, 482- Courts cannot grant permission to compound the non compoundable offences, on the basis of any sort of compromise between the parties, as it would be contrary to what has been provided by legislation, except the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC and the Apex Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. [In this case, the court invoked Article 142 as the appellants and complainant side are close relatives and after settling their disputes, both sides have agreed to maintain peace and harmony in the society.]. - Referred to Ramgopal & Anr. v. State of M.P (2022) 14 SCC 531 (Para 6-7)

Baccarose Perfumes And Beauty Products Pvt. Ltd. vs Central Bureau Of Investigation 2024 INSC 662 – FIR – Initiation

Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973- Section 154-176 -Mere registration of FIR cannot be interpreted to mean that it constitutes the initiation of such proceedings. A registration of FIR necessitates an investigation by a competent officer as per the detailed process outlined in Sections 155 to 176. It is only after a Final Report (or as referred in the common parlance, a Challan or a Chargesheet) is submitted as per the compliance of Section 173(2) of CrPC 1973, cognizance for the offence(s) concerned is taken. However, undoubtedly, the Court is not bound by the said report. The cardinal principle that investigation and taking of cognizance operate in parallel channels, without an intermingling, and in different areas - Referred to H.N. Rishbud v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1954) 2 SCC 934 , Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra 1967 SCC OnLine SC 107 and State of Orissa v. Habibullah Khan 2003 SCC OnLine SC 1411. (Para 19)

K Ravi vs State Of Tamil Nadu 2024 INSC 642 – Ss 216,227,397 CrPC – Discharge – Altering Of Charge – Revision

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 216,227- Section 216 is an enabling provision which enables the court to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced, and if any alternation or addition to a charge is made, the court has to follow the procedure as contained therein. Section 216 does not give any right to the accused to file a fresh application seeking his discharge after the charge is framed by the court, more particularly when his application seeking discharge under Section 227 has already been dismissed. Unfortunately, such applications are being filed in the trial courts sometimes in ignorance of law and sometimes deliberately to delay the proceedings. Once such applications though untenable are filed, the trial courts have no alternative but to decide them, and then again such orders would be challenged before the higher courts, and the whole criminal trial would get derailed- Such practice is highly deplorable, and if followed, should be dealt with sternly by the courts. (Para 11)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 216,397- The order dismissing application seeking modification of charge would be an interlocutory order and in view of the express bar contained in sub-section (2) of Section 397 Cr.P.C., the Revision Application itself is not maintainable. (Para 8)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 397-The Court exercising Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 397 should be extremely circumspect in interfering with the order framing the charge, and could not have interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application for modification of the charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C., which order otherwise would fall in the category of an interlocutory order - scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited. Apart from the fact that subsection 2 of Section 397 prohibits the Court from exercising the powers of Revision, even the powers under sub-section 1 thereof should be exercised very sparingly and only where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there is non-compliance of the provisions of law, or the finding recorded by the trial court is based on no evidence, or material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely by framing the charge. (Para 10)

Raju vs State of Uttarakhand 2024 INSC 633 – S 307 IPC – Criminal Trial – Appeal Against Acquittal

Indian Penal Code,1860- Section 307 - A conviction under Section 307 of the IPC may be justified only if the accused in question possessed intent coupled with some overt act in aid of its execution. Ascertaining the intention to kill or having the knowledge that death may be caused as a result of the overt act, is a question of fact and hinges on the unique circumstances that each case may present. (Para 17)

Criminal Trial - Usually in matters involving criminality, discrepancies are bound to be there in the account given by a witness, especially when there is conspicuous disparity between the date of the incident and the time of deposition. However, if the discrepancies are such that they create serious doubt on the veracity of a witness, then the Court may deduce and decline to rely on such evidence. This is especially true when there are variations in the evidence tendered by prosecution witnesses regarding the sequence of events as they have occurred. Courts must exercise all the more care and conscientiousness when such oral evidence may lean towards falsely implicating innocent persons. (Para 13) -Circumstantial Evidence - The chain of evidence proffered by the prosecution has to be as complete as is humanly possible and it does not leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must instead, indicate that the act had indeed been singularly committed by the accused only. (Para 15)

Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973- Section 378 - When the Trial Court has acquitted the accused based on a plausible understanding of the evidence, and such finding is not marred by perversity or due to overlooking or misreading of the evidence presented by the prosecution, the High Court ought not to overturn such an order of acquittal. (Para 16)

Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 INSC 626 -S 406,415,420 IPC – S 202 CrPC – Breach Of Trust & Cheating

Indian Penal Code,1860- Section 406, 415, 420-The offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC) have specific ingredients. In order to constitute a criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC): - 1) There must be entrustment with person for property or dominion over the property, and 2) The person entrusted: - a) dishonestly misappropriated or converted property to his own use, or b) dishonestly used or disposed of the property or willfully suffers any other person so to do in violation of: i. any direction of law prescribing the method in which the trust is discharged- or ii. legal contract touching the discharge of trust (see: S.W.P. Palanitkar (supra). Similarly, in respect of an offence under Section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients are: - 1) deception of any person, either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission- 2) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property, or 3) the consent that any persons shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit (see: Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, (2009) 7 SCC 712 : (2009) Cr.L.J. 3462 (SC))-In both the aforesaid sections, mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or the dishonest intention must be present, and in the case of cheating it must be there from the very beginning or inception. (Para 25-26) - If it is a case of the complainant that offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 of IPC, punishable under Section 406 of IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same breath it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating as defined and explained in Section 415 of the IPC, punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. (Para 27)- The case of cheating and dishonest intention starts with the very inception of the transaction. But in the case of criminal breach of trust, a person who comes into possession of the movable property and receives it legally, but illegally retains it or converts it to his own use against the terms of the contract, then the question is, in a case like this, whether the retention is with dishonest intention or not, whether the retention involves criminal breach of trust or only a civil liability would depend upon the facts of each case. (Para 29) - The distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating is a fine one. In case of cheating, the intention of the accused at the time of inducement should be looked into which may be judged by a subsequent conduct, but for this, the subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning of the ransaction i.e. the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it is this intention, which is the gist of the offence. Whereas, for the criminal breach of trust, the property must have been entrusted to the accused or he must have dominion over it. The property in respect of which the offence of breach of trust has been committed must be either the property of some person other than the accused or the beneficial interest in or ownership’ of it must be of some other person. The accused must hold that property on trust of such other person. Although the offence, i.e. the offence of breach of trust and cheating involve dishonest intention, yet they are mutually exclusive and different in basic concept. There is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a false or misleading representation i.e., since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver any property. In such a situation, both the offences cannot co-exist simultaneously. (Para 30)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 204 -Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. [Referred to Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate : (1998) 5 SCC 749] (Para 13)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- A petition filed under Section 482, CrPC, for quashing an order summoning the accused is maintainable. There cannot be any doubt that once it is held that sine qua non for exercise of the power to issue summons is the subjective satisfaction “on the ground for proceeding further” while exercising the power to consider the legality of a summons issued by a Magistrate, certainly it is the duty of the Court to look into the question as to whether the learned Magistrate had applied his mind to form an opinion as to the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding further and in that regard to issue summons to face the trial for the offence concerned. (Para 22)

Indian Penal Code,1860- Section 406 - In case of sale of goods, the property passes to the purchaser from the seller when the goods are delivered. Once the property in the goods passes to the purchaser, it cannot be said that the purchaser was entrusted with the property of the seller. Without entrustment of property, there cannot be any criminal breach of trust. Thus, prosecution of cases on charge of criminal breach of trust, for failure to pay the consideration amount in case of sale of goods is flawed to the core. There can be civil remedy for the non-payment of the consideration amount, but no criminal case will be maintainable for it. (Para 36)

Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited vs Central Bureau Of Investigation 2024 INSC 623 – Art.136,149 Constitution- S 482,227 CrPC 

Constitution of India,1950- Article 136- Article 136 can be invoked by a party in a petition for special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by a Court or Tribunal within the territory of India. The reach of the extraordinary powers vested in this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is boundless. Such unbridled powers have been vested in Court, not just to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice as contemplated in Section 482, Cr.P.C, but to ensure dispensation of justice, correct errors of law, safeguard fundamental rights, exercise judicial review, resolve conflicting decisions, inject consistency in the legal system by settling precedents and for myriad other to undo injustice, wherever noticed and promote the cause of justice at every level. The fetters on this power are self imposed and carefully tampered with sound judicial discretion. (Para 19.6)

Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973- Section 482- Section 482 Cr.P.C recognizes the inherent powers of the High Court to quash initiation of prosecution against the accused to pass such orders as may be considered necessary to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is a statutory power vested in the High Court to quash such criminal proceedings that would dislodge the charges levelled against the accused and based on the material produced, lead to a firm opinion that the assertions contained in the charges levelled by the prosecution deserve to be overruled. 18.8 While exercising the powers vested in the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C, whether at the stage of issuing process or at the stage of committal or even at the stage of framing of charges, which are all stages that are prior to commencement of the actual trial, the test to be applied is that the Court must be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused would lead to a conclusion that their defence is based on sound, reasonable and indubitable facts. The material relied on by the accused should also be such that would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss the accusations levelled against them as false. (Para 18.7-18.8)
Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973- Section 227- The expression “not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” clearly shows that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution. The Judge must exercise the judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. The principles governing the scope of Section 227, Cr.P.C. - Referred to Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4. (Para 20.2)

Constitution of India,1950- Article 149- CAG Report is subject to scrutiny by the Parliament and the Government can always offer its views on the said report. Merely because the CAG is an independent constitutional functionary does not mean that after receiving a report from it and on the PAC scrutinizing the same and submitting its report, the Parliament will automatically accept the said report. The Parliament may agree or disagree with the Report. It may accept it as it is or in part. [In this case, the Audit Report of the CAG has not been tabled before the Parliament for soliciting any comments from the PAC or the respective Ministries. Therefore, the views taken by the CAG to the effect that tremendous loss had been caused to the public exchequer on account of the coal rejects being disposed of by the KPCL and KECML remains a view point but cannot be accepted as decisive. ] (Para 11.2-11.5)

In Re Right To Privacy Of Adolescents 2024 INSC 614 – S 19 POCSO – Judgment Writing

Judgment - The ultimate object of writing a judgment is to ensure that the parties before the Court know why the case is decided in their favour or against them. Therefore, judgment must be in a simple language. The conclusions recorded by the Court in the judgment on legal or factual issues must be supported by cogent reasons- the Court can always comment upon the conduct of the parties. However, the findings regarding the conduct of the parties must be confined only to such conduct which has a bearing on the decision-making. A judgment of the Court cannot contain the Judge's personal opinions on various subjects. Similarly, advisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the Court by incorporating advice to the parties or advice in general. The Judge has to decide a case and not preach. The judgment cannot contain irrelevant and unnecessary material. A judgment must be in simple language and should not be verbose. Brevity is the hallmark of quality judgment. We must remember that judgment is neither a thesis nor a piece of literature - When a Court deals with an appeal against an order of conviction, the judgment must contain (i) a concise statement of the facts of the case, (ii) the nature of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence, if any, (iii) the submissions made by the parties, (iv) the analysis based on the reappreciation of evidence, and (v) the reasons for either confirming the guilt of the accused or for acquitting the accused. The appellate court must scan through the evidence, both oral and documentary, and reappreciate it. After reappreciating the evidence, the appellate court must record reasons for either accepting the evidence of the prosecution or for disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution. The Court must record reasons for deciding whether the charges against the accused have been proved. In a given case, if the conviction is confirmed, the Court will have to deal with the legality and adequacy of the sentence. In such a case, there must be a finding recorded on the legality and adequacy of the sentence with reasons. (Para 13-14)

POCSO Act- Section 19 (6)- It is the responsibility of the State to take care of helpless victims of such heinous offences- The right to live a dignified life is an integral part of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 encompasses the right to lead a healthy life. The minor child, who is the victim of the offences under the POCSO Act, is also deprived of the fundamental right to live a dignified and healthy life. The same is the case of the child born to the victim as a result of the offence. All the provisions of the JJ Act regarding taking care of such children and rehabilitating them are consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, immediately after the knowledge of the commission of a heinous offence under the POCSO Act, the State, its agencies and instrumentalities must step in and render all possible aid to the victim children, which will enable them to lead a dignified life. The failure to do so will amount to a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the victim children under Article 21. The police must strictly implement subsection (6) of Section 19 of the POCSO Act. If that is not done, the victim children are deprived of the benefits of the welfare measures under the JJ Act. Compliance with Section 19(6) is of vital importance. Non-compliance thereof will lead to a violation of Article 21.

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- Even if the (rape/POCSO) accused and the victim (who has now attained majority) were to come out with a settlement, the High Court could not have quashed the prosecution. [In this case, HC quashed the conviction on these grounds: (a)There was a “non-exploitative” consensual sexual relationship between the two consenting adolescents- (b)The ground reality was that after the birth of the child, the accused is taking care of the victim and the infant/small child- (c)The victim has no support from her parents, and (d)A humane view is required to be taken to do complete justice.] (Para 20-23)

Yugal Sikri vs State Of UP 2024 INSC 597 – Ss 29, 34 Industiral Disputes Act- Grant Of Authority

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 34- The grant of authority under Section 34(1) is a condition precedent for filing a complaint under Section 34(2) of the ID Act. The authority granted under Section 34(1) must be in respect of a specific offence for which a complaint is intended to be filed- While exercising power under Section 34(1) of the ID Act of granting authority, there is a complete non-application of mind. If such authority is issued without any application of mind, the very object of providing a safeguard in the form of Section 34(1) will be frustrated. The object of the provision is to prevent frivolous complaints from being filed. Grant of authority is not an empty formality. (Para 10)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Section 29 - Section 29 is applicable when any person commits a breach of any term of any settlement or award binding on him under the ID Act. Therefore, in the complaint alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 29 of the ID Act, there must be a specific averment regarding the existence of a settlement or award binding on the accused under the ID Act and how the same has been breached. (Para 6)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 200- The object of recording a statement of the complainant under Section 200 of the Cr.PC is to bring the truth on record. (Para 7)

Manish Sisodia vs Directorate Of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 – Bail – PMLA

PMLA,2002- Section 45 - Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 439- Right to bail in cases of delay coupled with incarceration for a long period should be read into Section 439 Cr.P.C. and Section 45 of the PMLA. (Para 44).

Bail -The prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial. (Para 54)- - From our experience, we can say that it appears that Trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. - On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception”. (Para 53) -The objective to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal is to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial. (Para 55)

Summary: Bail granted to Manish Sisodia -Observations: In a matter pertaining to the life and liberty of a citizen which is one of the most sacrosanct rights guaranteed by the Constitution, a citizen cannot be made to run from pillar to post- In the present case, in the ED matter as well as the CBI matter, 493 witnesses have been named. The case involves thousands of pages of documents and over a lakh pages of digitized documents. It is thus clear that there is not even the remotest possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future. In our view, keeping the appellant behind the bars for an unlimited period of time in the hope of speedy completion of trial would deprive his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Allarakha Habib Memon vs State Of Gujarat 2024 INSC 590 – FIR – S 26 Evidence Act

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 154,161,162- When the police officer does not deliberately record the FIR on receipt of information about cognizable offence and the FIR is prepared after reaching the spot after due deliberations, consultations and discussion, such a complaint cannot be treated as FIR and it would be a statement made during the investigation of a case and is hit by Section 162 CrPC- Referred to State of A.P. v. Punati Ramulu 1994 Supp (1) SCC 590. (Para 29)

Criminal Trial -Sole circumstance of recovery of bloodstained weapon cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same was connected with the murder of the deceased by the accused - Referred to Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 11 SCC 724. (Para 43)

Indian Evidence Act,1872- Section 21,26,27- confessions of the accused recorded by the Medical Officer while preparing the injury reports of the accused -These so-called confessions are ex-facie inadmissible in evidence for the simple reason that the accused persons were presented at the hospital by the police officers after having been arrested in the present case. As such, the notings made by the Medical Officer, ) in the injury reports would be clearly hit by Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872- As a consequence, we are not inclined to accept the said admissions of the accused as incriminating pieces of evidence relevant under Section 21 of the Evidence Act - The circumstance regarding identification of place of incident at the instance of the accused is also inadmissible because the crime scene was already known to the police and no new fact was discovered in pursuance of the disclosure statements. (Para 40-41)

Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah vs Kamal Dayani 2024 INSC 588 – Anticipatory Bail

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 438 [Section 482 BNSS]- The practice prevalent in the State of Gujarat that the Courts while dealing with the anticipatory bail application routinely impose the restrictive condition whereby, the Investigating Officers are granted blanket permission to seek police custody remand of the accused, in whose favour the order of anticipatory bail is passed, is in direct contravention to the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sushila Agarwal.
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167- Remand - Before exercising the power to grant police custody remand, the Courts must apply judicial mind to the facts of the case so as to arrive at a satisfaction as to whether the police custody remand of the accused is genuinely required. The Courts are not expected to act as 60 messengers of the investigating agencies and the remand applications should not be allowed in a routine manner. (Para 48)

Dharambeer Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand 2024 INSC 583 – S 482 CrPC – Forgery Case

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- While exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the High Court is not supposed to hold a mini trial-The complicity of the accused in case of forgery will have to be addressed after a proper appreciation of evidence and such appreciation of evidence can be done only by undertaking the initial process i.e. by conducting the trial on the aspect of forgery.


Sudeep Chatterjee vs State of Bihar 2024 INSC 567- S 438 CrPC -Anticipatory Bail Conditions

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 438 [Section 482 BNSS] - After forming an opinion, taking note of all relevant aspects, that bail is grantable, conditions shall not be put to make it impossible and impracticable for the grantee to comply with - The ultimate purpose of putting conditions while granting pre-arrest bail is to secure the presence of the accused and thus, eventually to ensure a fair trial and also for the smooth flow of the investigating process - Courts have to be very cautious in imposing conditions while granting bail upon finding pre-arrest bail to be grantable. [Putting conditions requiring a person to give an affidavit carrying a specific statement in the form of an undertaking that he would fulfil all physical as well as financial requirements of the other spouse so that she could lead a dignified life without interference of any of the family members of the appellant, can only be described as an absolutely improbable and impracticable condition]- We stress upon the need to put compliable conditions while granting bail, recognizing the human right to live with dignity and with a view to secure the presence of the accused as also unhindered course of investigation, ultimately to ensure a fair trial. In respect of matters relating to matrimonial cases, conditions shall be put in such a way to make the grantee of the bail as also the griever to regain the lost love and affection and to come back to peaceful domesticity. (Para 7-9)

Legal Maxim - ‘Lex non cogit ad impossibilia’ -The law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform. (Para 1)

Parvinder Singh Khurana vs Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 546 – Cancellation Of Bail – Stay Order

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 439 - [Section 483 BNSS] - In an application made under Section 439(2) of the CrPC or Section 483(3) of the BNSS or other proceedings filed seeking cancellation of bail, the power to grant an interim stay of operation of order to bail can be exercised only in exceptional cases when a very strong prima facie case of the existence of the grounds for cancellation of bail is made out. While granting a stay of an order of grant of bail, the Court must record brief reasons for coming to a conclusion that the case was an exceptional one and a strong prima facie case is made out - As a normal rule, the ex­parte stay of the bail order should not be granted. The said power can be exercised only in rare and very exceptional cases where the situation demands the passing of such drastic order. Where such a drastic ex­parte order of stay is passed, it is the duty of the Court to immediately hear the accused on the prayer for continuation of the interim relief. When the Court exercises the power of granting ex­parte ad interim stay of an order granting bail, the Court is duty bound to record reasons why it came to the conclusion that it was a very rare and exceptional case where a drastic order of ex­parte interim stay was warranted. (Para 20)

Shailendra Kumar Srivastava vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2024 INSC 529 – S 321 CrPC -Withdrawal Of Prosecution

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 321 [ Section 360 BNSS]- Merely because an accused person is elected to the Legislative Assembly cannot be a testament to their image among the general public. Matters of a gruesome crime akin to the double murder in the present case do not warrant withdrawal of prosecution merely on the ground of good public image of an accused named in the charge sheet after thorough investigation. Contrary to the Trial Court’s view, such withdrawal cannot be said to be allowed in public interest. This reasoning cannot be accepted especially in cases of involvement of influential people. [In this case, Trial Court allowed the application for withdrawal of prosecution for one of the accused persons] (Para 12)

Ram Prakash Chadha vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2024 INSC 522- S 227 CrPC – Discharge- Criminal Conspiracy -S 120A IPC

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 227- At the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, defence case or material, if produced at all by the accused, cannot be looked at all. Once “the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith” are before the Court they alone can be looked into for considering the application for discharge and thereafter if it considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused concerned then he shall be discharged after recording reasons therefor. In that regard, it is only appropriate to consider the authorities dealing with the question as to what exactly is the scope of consideration and what should be the manner of consideration while exercising such power-in a case where an application is filed for discharge under Section 227, Cr.PC, it is an irrecusable duty and obligation of the Court to apply its mind and answer to it regarding the existence of or otherwise, of ground for proceeding against the accused, by confining such consideration based only on the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf. To wit, such conclusion on existence or otherwise of ground to proceed against the accused concerned should not be and could not be based on mere suppositions or suspicions or conjectures, especially not founded upon material available before the Court - Normally, the Court is to record his reasons only for discharging an accused at the stage of Section 227, Cr.PC. However, when an application for discharge is filed under Section 227, Cr.PC, the Court concerned is bound to disclose the reason(s), though, not in detail, for finding sufficient ground for rejecting the application or in other words, for finding prima facie case, as it will enable the superior Court to examine the challenge against the order of rejection(Para 22)

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 120A,120B -Conspiracy is hatched in privacy and not in secrecy, and such it would rarely be possible to establish conspiracy by direct evidence. A few bits here and a few bits there, on which the prosecution may rely, are not sufficient to connect an accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy- To constitute even an accusation of criminal conspiracy, first and foremost, there must at least be an accusation of meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act, which is not illegal in itself, by illegal means. (Para 26-27)

Mohd. Abdul Samad vs State Of Telangana 2024 INSC 506 – S 125 CrPC – Muslim Women

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 125 [Section 144 BNSS]- Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 - Section 125 of the CrPC applies to all married women including Muslim married women - Section 125 of the CrPC applies to all non-Muslim divorced women- If Muslim women are married and divorced under Muslim law then Section 125 of the CrPC as well as the provisions of the 1986 Act are applicable. Option lies with the Muslim divorced women to seek remedy under either of the two laws or both laws. This is because the 1986 Act is not in derogation of Section 125 of the CrPC but in addition to the said provision. If Section 125 of the CrPC is also resorted to by a divorced Muslim woman, as per the definition under the 1986 Act, then any order passed under the provisions of 1986 Act shall be taken into consideration under Section 127(3)(b) of the CrPC. -The 1986 Act could be resorted to by a divorced Muslim woman, as defined under the said Act, by filing an application thereunder which could be disposed of in accordance with the said enactment.

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 125 [Section 144 BNSS]- Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019- Section 5 -In case of an illegal divorce as per the provisions of the 2019 Act then, i) relief under Section 5 of the said Act could be availed for seeking subsistence allowance or, at the option of such a Muslim woman, remedy under Section 125 of the CrPC could also be availed ii) If during the pendency of a petition filed under Section 125 of the CrPC, a Muslim woman is ‘divorced’ then she can take recourse under Section 125 of the CrPC or file a petition under the 2019 Act. iii) The provisions of the 2019 Act provide remedy in addition to and not in derogation of Section 125 of the CrPC.

Gaurav Maini vs State Of Haryana 2024 INSC 488 – S 311 CrPC, Ss 65B,165 Evidence Act

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 311- Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 165- The trial Court is under an obligation not to act as a mere spectator and should proactively participate in the trial proceedings, so as to ensure that neither any extraneous material is permitted to be brought on record nor any relevant fact is left out. It is the duty of the trial Court to ensure that all such evidence which is essential for the just decision of the case is brought on record irrespective of the fact that the party concerned omits to do so. (Para 48)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 65B- When the prosecution admittedly, did not prove the call detail records in accordance with the mandate of Section 65B of the Evidence Act and hence, the call detail records cannot be read in evidence. (Para 51)

State Of Punjab vs Partap Singh Verka 2024 INSC 483 – Prevention Of Corruption Act – Sanction – S 319 CrPC

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 319 - Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19- Courts cannot take cognizance against any public servant for offences committed under Sections 7,11,13 & 15 of the P.C. Act, even on an application under section 319 of the CrPC, without first following the requirements of Section 19 of the P.C Act. Here, the correct procedure should have been for the prosecution to obtain sanction under Section 19 of the P.C Act from the appropriate Government, before formally moving an application before the Court under Section 319 of CrPC. In fact, the Trial Court too should have insisted on the prior sanction, which it did not. In absence of the sanction the entire procedure remains flawed. (Para 11)

Dharmendra Kumar @ Dhamma vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 480 – S 161 CrPC -S 32 Evidence Act – FIR

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 161- Indian Evidence Act,1872- Section 32- A statement made by a person who is dead, as to the cause of his death or to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, to a Police Officer and which has been recorded under Section 161 CrPC, shall be relevant and admissible, notwithstanding the express bar against use of such statement in evidence contained therein. In such eventuality, the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC assumes the character of a dying declaration. Since extraordinary credence has been given to such dying declaration, the court ought to be extremely careful and cautious in placing reliance thereupon. (Para 65) -the mere nonobtainment of a medical fitness certificate will not deter this Court from considering a properly recorded statement under Section 161 CrPC to be a dying declaration. (Para 69)

Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973- Section 154-The object of the FIR is three-fold: firstly, to inform the jurisdictional Magistrate and the Police Administration of the offence that has been reported to the Police Station- secondly, to acquaint the Judicial Officer before whom the case is ultimately tried as to what are the actual facts stated immediately after the occurrence and on what materials the investigation commenced- thirdly and most importantly, to safeguard the accused against subsequent variations, exaggerations or additions. (Para 39) -e stipulations outlined in Section 154 CrPC concerning the reading over of the information after it is written down, the signing of the said information by the informant, and the entry of its substance in the prescribed manner are not obligatory. These requirements are procedural in nature, and the omission of any of them does not impact the legal consequences resulting from the information provided under the section. (Para 43)

Criminal Trial -It would be too unfair and unreasonable to expect a witness, unless parroted, to recall every minute detail of the occurrence and 31 present it with a totally accumulative narrative. (Para 58)

Criminal Trial - The non explanation of human blood on the weapon of crime constitutes a circumstance against the accused. It is incumbent upon the accused to provide an explanation regarding the presence of human blood on the weapon. (Para 61)


Sardar Ravi Inder Singh vs State of Jharkhand 2024 INSC 472- S 362 CrPC

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 362- The second prayer in the writ petition could have been hit by Section 362 of the Cr.PC, as the prayer was to quash the order on the application for discharge (This prayer was sought in writ petition that was dismissed earlier). But the first prayer was for quashing the complaint itself. Therefore, dismissing the first prayer in the writ petition on the ground of the bar of Section 362 of the Cr.PC was erroneous. (Para 15)

Naresh Kumar vs State Of Delhi 2024 INSC 464 – S 313 CrPC

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 313 [ Section 351 BNSS] - Though questioning under clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of Section 313, Cr.PC, is discretionary, the questioning under clause (b) thereof is mandatory. Needless to say, a fatal non-compliance in the matter of questioning under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) thereof, in case resulted in material prejudice to any convict in a criminal case the trial concerned, qua that convict should stand vitiated. (Para 1) - Non-questioning or inadequate questioning on incriminating circumstances to an accused by itself would not vitiate the trial qua the accused concerned and to hold the trial qua him is vitiated it is to be established further that it resulted in material prejudice to the accused. True that the onus to establish the prejudice or miscarriage on account of non-questioning or inadequate questioning on any incriminating circumstance(s), during the examination under Section 313, Cr.PC, is on the convict concerned. (Para 21)


Union of India vs Barakatullah 2024 INSC 452 -S 18 UAPA – Bail – CrPC

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957- Section 18- For the purpose of considering the offence under Section 18, the commission of terrorist act as contemplated in Section 15 of UAPA is not required to be made out. What Section 18 contemplates is that whoever conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets, advises or incites, directly or knowingly facilitates the commission of a terrorist act or any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act would be punishable under the said provision. Hence, if there is any material or evidence to show that the accused had conspired or attempted to commit a terrorist act, or committed any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act, such material evidence would be sufficient to invoke Section 18. For attracting Section 18, the involvement of the accused in the actual commission of terrorist act as defined in Section 15 need not be shown. (Para 18)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 173(2)- Chargesheet need not contain detailed analysis of the evidence- It is for the concerned court considering the application for bail to assess the material/evidence presented by the investigating authority along with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in its entirety, to form its opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation against the accused is prima facie true or not. (Para 13)

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957- Section 43(D)(5) -the question of discarding the material or document at the stage of considering the bail application of an accused, on the ground of being not reliable or inadmissible in evidence, is not permissible. The Court must look at the contents of the documents and take such documents into account as it is and satisfy itself on the basis of broad probabilities regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of the alleged offences for recording whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused. (Para 19)

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1957- Counter terrorism enactments are to strike a balance between the civil liberties of the accused, human rights of the victims and compelling interest of the state- National security is always of paramount importance and any act in aid to any terrorist act – violent or non-violent is liable to be restricted. The UAPA is one of such Acts which has been enacted to provide for effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations, and to deal with terrorist activities, as also to impose reasonable restrictions on the civil liberties of the persons in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India. (Para 23)

Sunita Devi vs State Of Bihar 2024 INSC 448 – Speedy Trial – Sentencing – CrPC

Criminal Trial - Sentencing -There is a crying need for a clear sentencing policy, which should never be judge-centric as the society has to know the basis of a sentence- Sentencing shall not be a mere lottery. It shall also not be an outcome of a knee-jerk reaction.- The Government of India represented by the Secretary for the Ministry of Law and Justice shall file an affidavit on the feasibility of introducing a comprehensive sentencing policy and a report thereon, within a period of six months from today. (Para 32,33, 58)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Sections 207,238 - An accused shall be put to notice on the incriminating materials leading to the charges framed against him. As stated, the obligation so imposed is not only on the supply of the relevant documents, but such compliance should be at the appropriate stage so that it does not brook any delay. The idea is to enable an accused to face the trial by thoroughly understanding the case stated against him. However, a mere non-supply of a part of the documents would not lead to the trial being vitiated, unless an accused substantiates before the Court that it has caused prejudice to him. Obviously, it is ultimately for the Court to come to an appropriate conclusion by an adequate assessment of facts placed before it. (Para 16) -The right of an accused would arise, in getting the documents relied upon by the prosecution, after taking cognizance and before framing of the charges. Therefore, between taking cognizance and framing of charges, an accused should have sufficient window to go through the documents supplied to him as he is entitled to be heard at a later stage. (Para 17)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 227 - Before the stage of framing of charges, the Judge is expected to discharge an accused, if he is of the considered view that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. This being a judicial exercise, his discretion must be supported by adequate reasons. In discharge of his powers, he has to consider the records and documents submitted by the prosecution vis-àvis the arguments adduced by both sides. The words “after hearing the submissions of the accused” would imply an effective and meaningful hearing. It is not a mere procedural compliance. A Judge has to satisfy himself that the accused had reasonable time to ponder over and prepare his arguments before seeking a discharge. At this stage, an accused gets a substantive right as there is a window of opportunity for him to get discharged, instead of facing a prolonged trial. Such an opportunity can only be exercised by not only supplying the documents needed, but also giving adequate and sufficient time to the defence to place its case. Granting time for the aforesaid purpose is the sole discretion of the Court - The duty of the Court is to see as to whether the materials produced by the prosecution are reasonably related to the offence attributed against the accused. What is to be seen is the existence of a prima facie case. The case is at a pre-framing stage and therefore, it cannot be a full-fledged pretrial. Adequacy and sufficiency are the relevant factors to be seen. The test is one of the degree of probability. .Section 227 of the CrPC, 1973, in fact, is a provision which gives effect to Article 22 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The right of an accused to be heard is inalienable. For exercising this right, there has to be due consultation. Such a right can never be termed as a procedural one. It would be a ground to challenge the proceeding at that stage, but the same would not vitiate the trial. Suffice it is to reiterate that it is the duty of the court to ensure that the accused is given sufficient opportunities to consult his lawyer. (Para 18-20)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 228 -The Judge, while framing any charge, is ordained to read and explain it to the accused. Thereafter, the accused shall be asked as to whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. As a matter of routine, video conferencing must be avoided, unless there are compelling reasons to do so. This is an occasion where the Judge avoids the lawyer and keeps in touch with the accused directly. He records the response of the accused. Under those circumstances, unless a situation so warrants otherwise, the presence of the accused shall be ensured. (Para 21)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Sections 230,231 - To ensure fair play, as a normal practice, the Court has to fix a date for the examination of the witnesses. The idea is to complete the examination-inchief and cross examination, both at the same time. While fixing the date, the Court is expected to take into consideration the relative convenience of the parties, though the discretion lies with it. Sub-section (1) of Section 231 of the CrPC, 1973 fixes a responsibility on the Court, the prosecution and the defence to go ahead with the examination of witnesses on the date so fixed. Therefore, even for this reason, the Court shall ascertain and then decide a convenient date for both sides, while being conscious about any attempt to drag the trial. Completion of such examination is a matter of rule as any deferment can at best be an exception, to the discretion of the Court. Obviously, the use of such a discretion, being judicial in nature, has to be on a case-to-case basis. Suffice it is to state that a balance has to be struck between the competing interests. (Para 22)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 354- Section 354 of the CrPC, 1973 though merely deals with the language and contents of judgment, also sheds light on the fact that a judgment contains two distinct parts, wherein the first part deals with the conviction and the second deals with the sentence. Sub-section (1)(c) of the aforesaid provision has to be understood to mean that a Judge is expected to consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In such view of the matter, sub-section (3) of the aforesaid provision is more clarificatory, keeping in mind the nature of the offence committed. As a convict is heard on sentence, it follows that any decision on sentence has to indicate the reasons for exercise of judicial discretion by the Judge. (Para 42)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 233- If the accused applies for the issue of process to compel the attendance of any witnesses or production of document, the Judge shall issue such process. It is only when he comes to the conclusion, that an application filed for the aforesaid purpose on behalf of the defence is vexatious or filed to delay the proceedings or for defeating the ends of justice, it has to be refused. We have no hesitation in holding that when an application is moved invoking Section 233 of the CrPC, 1973 the Judge is duty bound to issue process, unless he is satisfied on the existence of the three elements as aforesaid. Any denial would be an affront to the concept of a fair trial.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 309 -This section places emphasis on the continuation of the trial as any obstruction and delay would hamper the process of justice. In a criminal trial, continuity is of utmost importance, as it not only helps the court to concentrate, but ensures quality justice. However, the courts are not powerless in granting adjournments if the circumstances so warrant. Therefore, despite a bar under the second and fourth proviso to Section 309, an adjournment can be granted, provided the party who seeks so, satisfies the court. After all, a speedy trial enures to the benefit of the accused- (Para 24)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 465 - This provision is meant to uphold the decision of the trial court, even in a case where there is an apparent irregularity in procedure. If the evidence available has been duly taken note of by the Court, then such a decision cannot be reversed on account of a mere technical error. This is based on the principle that a procedural law is the handmaid of justice. However, the ultimate issue is as to whether such an error or omission has constituted a failure of justice, which is one of fact, to be decided on the touchstone of prejudice- If the Appellate Court is of the view that there is a continued noncompliance of the substantial provisions of the CrPC, 1973 then the rigour of Section 465 of the CrPC, 1973 would not apply and, in that case, an order of remand would be justified. (Para 25-26)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 386- An Appellate Court has got ample power to direct re-trial. However, such a power is to be exercised in exceptional cases. The irregularities found must be so material that a re-trial is the only option. In other words, the failure to follow the mandate of law must cause a serious prejudice vitiating the entire trial, which cannot be cured otherwise, except by way of a retrial. Once such a re-trial is ordered, the effect is that all the proceedings recorded by the court would get obliterated leading to a fresh trial, which is inclusive of the examination of witnesses. (Para 27)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 360- Probation of Offenders Act, 1958- Sections 3,4,6- A trial court is duty bound to comply with the mandate of Section 360 of the CrPC, 1973 read with Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Act, 1958 before embarking into the question of sentence. In this connection, we may note that sub-section (10) of Section 360 of the CrPC, 1973 makes a conscious effort to remind the Judge of the rigour of the beneficial provisions contained in the Act, 1958. (Para 28)

Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020 -Under Rule 11, an act of securing the presence of an accused through video conferencing at the time of judicial remand for the first time or police remand, is not a matter of course and, therefore, it is to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances for the reasons to be recorded in writing. Similar is the case qua recording of the statement of an accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “CrPC, 1973”), in which case, it is obligatory on the part of the Court to make sure that the accused is free from any form of coercion, threat or undue influence. (Para 4)

Criminal Trial - Fair Trial -The right to fair hearing is a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. A trial should be a real one and, therefore, not a mere pretence. There shall never be an impression over the decision of a Court that it has predetermined and pre-judged a case even before starting a trial, or else, such a trial would become an empty formality. (Para 7-10)- Speedy Trial -While a speedy trial is in the best interest of everyone, including the society, the pace can only be set through the procedural mechanism, and it cannot be done at the mere dictate of the Court in ignorance of the procedural law. At the same time, care has to be taken with the aid of the law, to prevent the miscarriage of justice, when the delay is caused on purpose. Thus, a speedy trial, being a facet of fair trial, cannot be permitted to destroy the latter by its recklessness. Any anxiety on the part of the Court, either to expedite the trial in contravention of law, or delay it unnecessarily, would seriously impede fair trial. In such a case, either the prosecution or the defence would bear the consequences.

Priti Agarwalla vs State Of GNCT Of Delhi 2024 INSC 437 -Ss 3,4 SC-ST Act- S 156(3) CrPC

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989- Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)- Intentional insult or abuse coupled with the humiliation is made in any place within public view. The expression “in any place within public view” has an important role to play in deciding whether the allegation attracts the ingredients of an offence or not- An important test for “in any place within public view” is within the view of persons other than the complainant. (Para 19-22)
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 156(3)- The Magistrate, under section 156(3) of the CrPC, asks himself a question: whether the complaint, as presented, makes out a case for directing the registration of an FIR or calls for inquiry or report from the jurisdictional police station. The inner and outer limit of the exercise of this jurisdiction is on a case-to-case basis dependent on the complaint, nature of allegations and offence set out by such a complaint- The Magistrate does not act mechanically and exercises his discretion judiciously by applying mind to the circumstances complained of and the offence alleged against the accused for taking one or the other step- To cause or register an FIR and consequential investigation based on the same petition filed under section 156(3) of the CrPC, the complaint satisfies the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. In other words, if such allegations in the petition are vague and do not specify the alleged offences, it cannot lead to an order for registration of an FIR and investigation. (Para 14-18)

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989- Section 4- The commission or omission of any of the duties by the public servant becomes a cognizable offence against the public servant only on the recommendation of the administrative enquiry, for in law, an offence means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force. A combined reading of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 4, would demonstrate that the commission or omission by a public servant has penal consequences and the willful neglect is recommended by an administrative enquiry and the cognizance can be taken thereafter. The recommendation of administrative enquiry on alleged failure of duty or function by a public servant would make the neglect of an offence clear and the cognizance of such an offence is legal. The competent court can take cognizance of the commission or omission of any duty specified under sub-section (2) of section 4 when made along with the recommendation and direct legal proceedings. Therefore, to constitute a prima facie case of negligence of duty, the proviso to subsection (2) of section 4 contemplates an administrative enquiry and recommendations- the purpose of an administrative enquiry is to find out the conduct of a public servant against whom allegations of failure of duty or function are made and the omission or commission is bonafide or willful. (Para 13.4)

Interpretation of Statutes- A proviso is a clause that introduces a condition by the word ‘provided’. The main function of a proviso is to put a qualification and to attach a condition to the main provision. It indicates the exceptions to the provision but may aid in explaining what is meant to be conveyed by its part. A proviso is “introduced to indicate the effect of certain things which are within the statute but accompanied by the peculiar conditions embraced within the proviso”. A proviso is enacted to modify the immediately preceding language. (Para 13.4)

State of Himachal Pradesh vs Raghubir Singh 2024 INSC 421 – S 313 CrPC

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 375,376 -Absence of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix is by itself no ground to infer consent on the part of the prosecutrix. (Para 6)
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 313- The conviction cannot be based solely on the statements made by an accused under sub-section (1) of Section 313 of the Cr. PC. The statements of the accused cannot be considered in isolation but in conjunction with the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The statements may have more relevance when under a statute, an accused has burden of discharge. When the law requires an accused to discharge the burden, the accused can always do so by a preponderance of probability. But, while considering whether the accused has discharged the burden, the court can certainly consider his statement recorded under Section 313. (Para 6)
Summary: Appeal against HC judgment that convicted accused for the offence punishable under clause (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Dismissed appeal.

Prabir Purkayastha vs State (NCT Of Delhi) 2024 INSC 414 – Article 22(1) Constitution – Written Grounds Of Arrest – UAPA 

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 22(1) - Any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest. The purpose of informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as, this information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his Advocate- oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail. Any other interpretation would tantamount to diluting the sanctity of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. (Para 20)- The requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Non-compliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be (Para 30)- Mere fact that a charge sheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality committed at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody remand to the accused. (Para 22)- - Difference in the phrase ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest' - The ‘reasons for arrest’ as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters, viz., to prevent the accused person from committing any further offence- for proper investigation of the offence- to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tempering with such evidence in any manner- to prevent the arrested person for making 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 the Investigating Officer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas the ‘grounds of arrest’ would be required to contain all such details in hand of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the ‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature. (Para 49) 

Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967- Section 43B(1) -The interpretation of statutory mandate laid down in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India on the aspect of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest in writing has to be applied pari passu to a person arrested in a case registered under the provisions of the UAPA. (Para 19)
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 154- FIR is not an encyclopaedia and is registered just to set the process of criminal justice in motion. The Investigating Officer has the power to investigate the matter and collect all relevant material which would form the basis of filing of charge sheet in the Court concerned. (Para 41)
Constitution of India, 1950- Article 141 - once this Court has interpreted the provisions of the statute in context to the constitutional scheme and has laid down that the grounds of arrest have to be conveyed to the accused in writing expeditiously, the said ratio becomes the law of the land binding on all the Courts in the country by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. (Para 46)

Rajendra Bhagwanji Umraniya vs State of Gujarat 2024 INSC 413 – S 357 CrPC – Victim Compensation -Sentencing

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 357- Payment of victim compensation cannot be a consideration or a ground for reducing the sentence imposed upon the accused as victim compensation is not a punitive measure and only restitutory in nature and thus, has no bearing with the sentence that has been passed which is punitive in nature - . In criminal proceedings the courts should not conflate sentence with compensation to victims. Sentences such as imprisonment and / or fine are imposed independently of any victim compensation and thus, the two stand on a completely different footing, either of them cannot vary the other. Where an accused is directed to pay compensation to victims, the same is not meant as punishment or atonement of the convict but rather as a step towards reparation to the victims who have suffered from the offence committed by the convict- If payment of compensation becomes a consideration for reducing sentence, then the same will have a catastrophic effect on the criminal justice administration. It will result in criminals with a purse full of money to buy their way out of justice, defeating the very purpose of criminal proceedings. (Para 23-26)
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 357- The sole factor for deciding the compensation to be paid is the victim’s loss or injury as a result of the offence, and has nothing to do with the sentence that has been passed. Section 357 of CrPC is intended to reassure the victim that he/she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a constructive approach to crimes based on the premise that mere punishment of the offender may not give solace to the victim or its family- when deciding the compensation which is to be paid to a victim, the only factor that the court may take into consideration is the convict’s capacity to pay the compensation and not the sentence that has been imposed. (Para 24-25) - The idea of victim compensation is based on the theory of victimology which recognizes the harsh reality that victims are unfortunately the forgotten people in the criminal justice delivery system. Victims are the worst sufferers. Victims‟ family is ruined particularly in cases of death and grievous bodily injuries. This is apart from the factors like loss of reputation, humiliation, etc. Theory of Victimology seeks to redress the same and underscores the importance for criminal justice administration system to take into consideration the effect of the offence on the victim's family even though human life cannot be restored but then monetary compensation will at least provide some solace. (Para 22)

Shento Varghese vs Julfikar Husen 2024 INSC 407 – S 102(3) CrPC – Non- Reporting Of Seizure Forthwith

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 102(3)- Non reporting of the seizure forthwith by the police officer to the jurisdictional court would not vitiate the seizure order- But it does not mean that there would be no consequence whatsoever as regards the police officer, upon whom the law has enjoined a duty to act in a certain way- in deciding whether the police officer has properly discharged his obligation under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate would have to, firstly, examine whether the seizure was reported forthwith- The meaning of the word ‘forthwith’ discussed- In doing so, it ought to have regard to the interpretation of the expression, ‘forthwith’-If it finds that the report was not sent forthwith, then it must examine whether there is any explanation offered in support of the delay. If the Magistrate finds that the delay has been properly explained, it would leave the matter at that. However, if it finds that there is no reasonable explanation for the delay or that the official has acted with deliberate disregard/ wanton negligence, then it may direct for appropriate departmental action to be initiated against such erring official- However, the act of seizure would not get vitiated by virtue of such delay. (Para 16-23)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- if delay in registration of FIR is no ground to quash the FIR, then delay in forwarding such FIR to the Magistrate can also afford no ground for nullification of the FIR- Unless serious prejudice is demonstrated to have been suffered as against the accused, mere delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate by itself will not have any deteriorating effect on the case of the prosecution- If prejudice is demonstrated and the prosecution fails to explain the delay, then, at best, the effect of such delay would only be to render the date and time of lodging the FIR suspect and nothing more. (Para 16)
Words and Phrases - Forthwith- The expression ‘forthwith’ means ‘as soon as may be’, ‘with reasonable speed and expedition’, ‘with a sense of urgency’, and ‘without any unnecessary delay’. In other words, it would mean as soon as possible, judged in the context of the object sought to be achieved or accomplished- The interpretation of the word ‘forthwith’ would depend upon the terrain in which it travels and would take its colour depending upon the prevailing circumstances which can be variable. (Para 22-23)

Sukhpal Singh vs NCT Of Delhi 2024 INSC 385 – S 299 CrPC

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 299 (1)- The first part provides for proof of jurisdictional fact in respect of abscondence of an accused person and the second that there was no immediate prospect of arresting him. In the event, an order under the said provision is passed, deposition of any witness taken in the absence of an accused may be used against him if the deponent is dead or incapable of giving evidence or cannot be found or his presence cannot be procured without any amount of delay, expense or inconvenience which, under the circumstances of the case, would be unreasonable - Referred to Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 4 SCC 41 re: Under what circumstances and by what method, the statement of a witness under Section 299 of CrPC could have been tendered in the case for being admissible. (Para 31-32)

Alauddin vs State Of Assam 2024 INSC 376 – Ss 161,162 CrPC – Ss 145,155 Evidence Act

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 161,162- Any statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of investigation, which is reduced in writing, cannot be used for any purpose except as provided in Section 162. The first exception incorporated in sub-Section (2) is of the statements covered by clause (1) of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘Evidence Act’). Thus, what is provided in subSection (1) of Section 162 does not apply to a dying declaration. The second exception to the general rule provided in sub-Section (1) of Section 162 is that the accused can use the statement to contradict the witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Even the prosecution can use the statement to contradict a witness in the manner provided in Section 145 of the Evidence Act with the prior permission of the Court. The prosecution normally takes recourse to this provision when its witness does not support the prosecution case. There is one important condition for using the prior statement for contradiction. The condition is that the part of the statement used for contradiction must be duly proved. When the two statements cannot stand together, they become contradictory statements. When a witness makes a statement in his evidence before the Court which is inconsistent with what he has stated in his statement recorded by the Police, there is a contradiction. When a prosecution witness whose statement under Section 161 (1) or Section 164 of CrPC has been recorded states factual aspects before the Court which he has not stated in his prior statement recorded under Section 161 (1) or Section 164 of CrPC, it is said that there is an omission. There will be an omission if the witness has omitted to state a fact in his statement recorded by the Police, which he states before the Court in his evidence. The explanation to Section 162 CrPC indicates that an omission may amount to a contradiction when it is significant and relevant. Thus, every omission is not a contradiction. It becomes a contradiction provided it satisfies the test laid down in the explanation under Section 162. Therefore, when an omission becomes a contradiction, the procedure provided in the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 162 must be followed for contradicting witnesses in the crossexamination.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 145- The Section operates in two parts. The first part provides that a witness can be cross-examined as to his previous statements made in writing without such writing being shown to him. Thus, for example, a witness can be crossexamined by asking whether his prior statement exists -The second part is regarding contradicting a witness. While confronting the witness with his prior statement to prove contradictions, the witness must be shown his prior statement. If there is a contradiction between the statement made by the witness before the Court and what is recorded in the statement recorded by the police, the witness's attention must be drawn to specific parts of his prior statement, which are to be used to contradict him. Section 145 provides that the relevant part can be put to the witness without the writing being proved. However, the previous statement used to contradict witnesses must be proved subsequently. Only if the contradictory part of his previous statement is proved the contradictions can be said to be proved- The witness is intended to be confronted with his prior statement reduced into writing, that particular part of the statement, even before it is proved, must be specifically shown to the witness. After that, the part of the prior statement used to contradict the witness has to be proved. As indicated earlier, it can be treated as proved if the witness admits to having made such a statement, or it can be proved in the crossexamination of the concerned police officer. The object of this requirement in Section 145 of the Evidence Act of confronting the witness by showing him the relevant part of his prior statement is to give the witness a chance to explain the contradiction. Therefore, this is a rule of fairness. (Para 8)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 155- Every contradiction or omission is not a ground to discredit the witness or to disbelieve his/her testimony. A minor or trifle omission or contradiction brought on record is not sufficient to disbelieve the witness's version. Only when there is a material contradiction or omission can the Court disbelieve the witness's version either fully or partially. What is a material contradiction or omission depends upon the facts of each case. Whether an omission is a contradiction also depends on the facts of each individual case. (Para 9)

Achin Gupta vs State Of Haryana 2024 INSC 369 – S 498A IPC – S 482 CrPC

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 498A - Referred to Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand 2010 Criminal Law Journal 4303 - We request the Legislature to look into the issue as highlighted above taking into consideration the pragmatic realities and consider making necessary changes in Sections 85 and 86 respectively of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, before both the new provisions come into force.

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482-Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 498A- If the Court is convinced by the fact that the involvement by the complainant of her husband and his close relatives is with an oblique motive then even if the FIR and the chargesheet disclose the commission of a cognizable offence the Court with a view to doing substantial justice should read in between the lines the oblique motive of the complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter -If the wife on account of matrimonial disputes decides to harass her husband and his family members then the first thing, she would ensure is to see that proper allegations are levelled in the First Information Report. Many times the services of professionals are availed for the same and once the complaint is drafted by a legal mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to weed out any loopholes or other deficiencies in the same. However, that does not mean that the Court should shut its eyes and raise its hands in helplessness, saying that whether true or false, there are allegations in the First Information Report and the chargesheet papers disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. (Para 31)
Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 498A- In all cases, where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. (Para 32)

Anees vs State Govt Of NCT 2024 INSC 368 – Public Prosecutor – Ss 106, 165,27 Evidence Act- Ss 162 CrPC

Public Prosecutor - There should not be any element of political consideration in the matters like appointment to the post of public prosecutor, etc. The only consideration for the Government should be the merit of the person. The person should be not only competent, but he should also be a man of impeccable character and integrity. He should be a person who should be able to work independently without any reservations, dictates or other constraints. The relations between the Public Prosecution Service and the judiciary are the very cornerstone of the criminal justice system. The public prosecutors who are responsible for conducting prosecutions and may appeal against the court decisions, are one of judges’ natural counterparts in the trial proceedings and also in the broader context of management of the system of criminal law- The duty of the Public Prosecutor to cross-examine a hostile witness in detail and try to elucidate the truth & also establish that the witness is speaking lie and has deliberately resiled from his police statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. A good, seasoned and experienced Public Prosecutor will not only bring the contradictions on record, but will also cross-examine the hostile witness at length to establish that he or she had actually witnessed the incident as narrated in his/her police statement- It is not sufficient for the public prosecutor while cross-examining a hostile witness to merely hurl suggestions, as mere suggestions have no evidentiary value. (Para 67- 70)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 165 - Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 311- If the questioning by the public prosecutor is not skilled, like in the case at hand, the result is that the State as a prosecuting agency will not be able to elicit the truth from the child witness. It is the duty of the court to arrive at the truth and subserve the ends of justice. The courts have to take a participatory role in the trial and not act as mere tape recorders to record whatever is being stated by the witnesses. The judge has to monitor the proceedings in aid of justice. Even if the prosecutor is remiss or lethargic in some ways, the court should control the proceedings effectively so that the ultimate objective that is the truth is arrived at. The court must be conscious of serious pitfalls and dereliction of duty on the part of the prosecuting agency. Upon failure of the prosecuting agency showing indifference or adopting an attitude of aloofness, the trial judge must exercise the vast powers conferred under Section 165 of the Evidence Act and Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. respectively to elicit all the necessary materials by playing an active role in the evidence collecting process- The judge is expected to actively participate in the trial, elicit necessary materials from the witnesses in the appropriate context which he feels necessary for reaching the correct conclusion. The judge has uninhibited power to put questions to the witness either during the chief examination or cross-examination or even during re-examination for this purpose. If a judge feels that a witness has committed an error or slip, it is the duty of the judge to ascertain whether it was so, for, to err is human and the chances of erring may accelerate under stress of nervousness during cross-examination. (Para 73-74)

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 300- The sine qua non for the application of an Exception to Section 300 always is that it is a case of murder but the accused claims the benefit of the Exception to bring it out of that Section and to make it a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This plea, therefore, assumes that this is a case of murder. Hence, as per Section 105 of the Evidence Act, it is for the accused to show the applicability of the Exception-Four conditions must be satisfied to bring the matter within Exception 4: (i) it was a sudden fight- (ii) there was no premeditation- (iii) the act was done in the heat of passion- and- that (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. 80. On a plain reading of Exception 4, it appears that the help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight, (c) without the offenders having taken undue advantage or having acted in a cruel or unusual manner- and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4, all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. (Para 78-80) - Where the offender takes undue advantage or has acted in a cruel or an unusual manner, the benefit of Exception 4 cannot be given to him. If the weapon used or the manner of attack by the assailant is disproportionate, that circumstance must be taken into consideration to decide whether undue advantage has been taken. (Para 83)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 106- Principles of law governing the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act - Section 106 of the Evidence Act referred to above provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The word “especially” means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge of the accused. The ordinary rule that applies to the criminal trials that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is not in any way modified by the rule of facts embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Section 101 of the Evidence Act. Section 101 with its illustration (a) lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish the facts which are, “especially within the knowledge of the accused and which, he can prove without difficulty or inconvenience”- The court should apply Section 106 of the Evidence Act in criminal cases with care and caution. It cannot be said that it has no application to criminal cases. The ordinary rule which applies to criminal trials in this country that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is not in any way modified by the provisions contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked to make up the inability of the prosecution to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. This section cannot be used to support a conviction unless the prosecution has discharged the onus by proving all the elements necessary to establish the offence. It does not absolve the prosecution from the duty of proving that a crime was committed even though it is a matter specifically within the knowledge of the accused and it does not throw the burden on the accused to show that no crime was committed. To infer the guilt of the accused from absence of reasonable explanation in a case where the other circumstances are not by themselves enough to call for his explanation is to relieve the prosecution of its legitimate burden. So, until a prima facie case is established by such evidence, the onus does not shift to the accused-Section 106 of the Evidence Act obviously refers to cases where the guilt of the accused is established on the evidence produced by the prosecution unless the accused is able to prove some other facts especially within his knowledge, which would render the evidence of the prosecution nugatory. If in such a situation, the accused offers an explanation which may be reasonably true in the proved circumstances, the accused gets the benefit of reasonable doubt though he may not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the truth of the explanation. But, if the accused in such a case does not give any explanation at all or gives a false or unacceptable explanation, this by itself is a circumstance which may well turn the scale against him - But Section 106 of the Evidence Act has no application to cases where the fact in question, having regard to its nature, is such as to be capable of being known not only to the accused but also to others, if they happened to be present when it took place. The intention underlying the act or conduct of any individual is seldom a matter which can be conclusively established- it is indeed only known to the person in whose mind the intention is conceived. Therefore, if the prosecution has established that the character and circumstance of an act suggest that it was done with a particular intention, then under illustration (a) to this section, it may be assumed that he had that intention, unless he proves the contrary - Distinction between the burden of proof and the burden of going forward with the evidence - Generally, the burden of proof upon any affirmative proposition necessary to be established as the foundation of an issue does not shift, but the burden of evidence or the burden of explanation may shift from one side to the other according to the testimony. Thus, if the prosecution has offered evidence, which if believed by the court, would convince them of the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused, if in a position, should go forward with counter-vailing evidence, if he has such evidence. When facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused, the burden is on him to present evidence of such facts, whether the proposition is an affirmative or negative one. He is not required to do so even though a prima facie case has been established, for the court must still find that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before it can convict. However, the accused's failure to present evidence on his behalf may be regarded by the court as confirming the conclusion indicated by the evidence presented by the prosecution or as confirming presumptions which might arise therefrom. Although not legally required to produce evidence on his own behalf, the accused may, therefore, as a practical matter find it essential to go forward with proof. This does not alter the burden of proof resting upon the prosecution. (Para 25-48)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 8,27- The evidence of discovery would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act quite apart from the admissibility of the disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence - However, conduct of the accused alone, though may be relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, cannot form the basis of conviction. (Para 57-61)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 161,162- Section 162 Cr.P.C. bars the use of statement of witnesses recorded by the police except for the limited purpose of contradiction of such witnesses as indicated therein. The statement made by a witness before the police under Section 161(1) Cr.P.C. can be used only for the purpose of contradicting such witness on what he has stated at the trial as laid down in the proviso to Section 162(1) Cr.P.C. The statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded during the investigation are not substantive pieces of evidence but can be used primarily for the limited purpose: (i) of contradicting such witness by an accused under Section 145 of the Evidence Act- (ii) the contradiction of such witness also by the prosecution but with the leave of the Court- and (iii) the re-examination of the witness if necessary- The court cannot suo motu make use of statements to police not proved and ask questions with reference to them which are inconsistent with the testimony of the witness in the court. The words ‘if duly proved’ used in Section 162 Cr.P.C. clearly show that the record of the statement of witnesses cannot be admitted in evidence straightaway, nor can be looked into, but they must be duly proved for the purpose of contradiction by eliciting admission from the witness during cross-examination and also during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. The statement before the Investigating Officer can be used for contradiction but only after strict compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act, that is, by drawing attention to the parts intended for contradiction. (Para 63-64)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 145 -When it is intended to contradict the witness by his previous statement reduced into writing, the attention of such witness must be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him, before the writing can be used. While recording the deposition of a witness, it becomes the duty of the trial court to ensure that the part of the police statement with which it is intended to contradict the witness is brought to the notice of the witness in his crossexamination. The attention of witness is drawn to that part and this must reflect in his cross-examination by reproducing it. If the witness admits the part intended to contradict him, it stands proved and there is no need of further proof of contradiction and it will be read while appreciating the evidence. If he denies having made that part of the statement, his attention must be drawn to that statement and must be mentioned in the deposition. By this process the contradiction is merely brought on record, but it is yet to be proved. Thereafter, when the Investigating Officer is examined in the court, his attention should be drawn to the passage marked for the purpose of contradiction, it will then be proved in the deposition of the Investigating Officer who, again, by referring to the police statement will depose about the witness having made that statement. The process again involves referring to the police statement and culling out that part with which the maker of the statement was intended to be contradicted. If the witness was not confronted with that part of the statement with which the defence wanted to contradict him, then the court cannot suo motu make use of statements to police not proved in compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act, that is, by drawing attention to the parts intended for contradiction (Para 66)

Shankar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2024 INSC 366 – S 319 CrPC- Higher Degree Of Satisfaction

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 319- The degree of satisfaction required to exercise power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. - The evidence before the trial court should be such that if it goes unrebutted, then it should result in the conviction of the person who is sought to be summoned- The degree of satisfaction that is required to exercise power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is much stricter, considering that it is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power. Only when the evidence is strong and reliable, can the power be exercised. It requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity- Referred to Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92. (Para 16)

Sharif Ahmed vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2024 INSC 363 – S 156(3), 173(2), 200-205 CrPC – Ss 406,420,506 IPC

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 173(2)- It is the police report which would enable the Magistrate to decide a course of action from the options available to him. The details of the offence and investigation are not supposed to be a comprehensive thesis of the prosecution case, but at the same time, must reflect a thorough investigation into the alleged offence. It is on the basis of this record that the court can take effective cognisance of the offence and proceed to issue process in terms of Section 190(1)(b) and Section 204 of the Code. In case of doubt or debate, or if no offence is made out, it is open to the Magistrate to exercise other options which are available to him- The chargesheet is complete when it refers to material and evidence sufficient to take cognizance and for the trial. The nature and standard of evidence to be elucidated in a chargesheet should prima facie show that an offence is established if the material and evidence is proven. The chargesheet is complete where a case is not exclusively dependent on further evidence. The trial can proceed on the basis of evidence and material placed on record with the chargesheet. This standard is not overly technical or fool-proof, but a pragmatic balance to protect the innocent from harassment due to delay as well as prolonged incarceration, and yet not curtail the right of the prosecution to forward further evidence in support of the charge- (Para 3-32)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 205- The observation that there is no provision for granting exemption from personal appearance prior to obtaining bail, is not correct, as the power to grant exemption from personal appearance under the Code should not be read in a restrictive manner as applicable only after the accused has been granted bail. (para 47)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 156(3),204- Magistrate to be cautious in examining whether the facts of the case disclose a civil or a criminal wrong. Attempts at initiating vexatious criminal proceedings should be thwarted early on, as a summoning order, or even a direction to register an FIR, has grave consequences for setting the criminal proceedings in motion- Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims which do not involve any criminal offence, by way of applying pressure through criminal prosecution, should be deprecated and discouraged. (Para 44)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 204- Non-bailable warrants cannot be issued in a routine manner and that the liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed unless necessitated by the larger interest of public and the State- non bailable warrants should not be issued, unless the accused is charged with a heinous crime, and is likely to evade the process of law or tamper/destroy evidence. (Para 46)

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 406- An offence under Section 406 of the IPC requires entrustment, which carries the implication that a person handing over any property or on whose behalf the property is handed over, continues to be the owner of the said property. Further, the person handing over the property must have confidence in the person taking the property to create a fiduciary relationship between them. A normal transaction of sale or exchange of money/consideration does not amount to entrustment. (Para 36)

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 420-. The offence of cheating is established when the dishonest intention exists at the time when the contract or agreement is entered, for the essential ingredient of the offence of cheating consists of fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him to deliver any property, to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he had not been deceived. (Para 37)

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 506- An offence of criminal intimidation arises when the accused intended to cause alarm to the victim, though it does not matter whether the victim is alarmed or not. The intention of the accused to cause alarm must be established by bringing evidence on record. The word ‘intimidate’ means to make timid or fearful, especially: to compel or deter by or as if by threats. The threat communicated or uttered by the person named in the chargesheet as an accused, should be uttered and communicated by the said person to threaten the victim for the purpose of influencing her mind. The word ‘threat’ refers to the intent to inflict punishment, loss or pain on the other. Injury involves doing an illegal act.- This threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or omit to do an act which he is entitled to do. Mere expression of any words without any intent to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring home an offence under Section 506 of the IPC. The material and evidence must be placed on record to show that the threat was made with an intent to cause alarm to the complainant, or to cause them to do, or omit to do an act- Referred to Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka (2015) 7 SCC 423(Para 38-39)

Priyanka Jaiswal vs State Of Jharkhand 2024 INSC 357 – S 498A IPC – S 482 CrPC

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- At the time of examining the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings, the court exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction can neither undertake to conduct a mini trial nor enter into appreciation of evidence of a particular case. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint cannot be examined on the touchstone of the probable defence that the accused may raise to stave off the prosecution and any such misadventure by the Courts resulting in proceedings being quashed would be set aside. (Para 13)
Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 498A- When a plain reading of the complaint would clearly indicate that the complainant having been driven out of her matrimonial home had been residing at her father’s residence namely paternal home i.e. Jamshedpur- the appellant having been driven out of her matrimonial home continued to reside at her parental home and as such the court at Jamshedpur had jurisdiction.- Referred to Rupali Devi V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 384 (Para 17)

State Of Odisha vs Nirjharini Patnaik @ Mohanty 2024 INSC 346 – S 482 CrPC

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 - High Court quashed an FIR - Allowing appeal, SC observed: High Court has hastily concluded that there is no evidence to show meeting of minds between the other accused persons and the Respondents which in our considered opinion, can only be decided after a thorough examination of evidence and witnesses by the Trial Court - Dismissing the case at the preliminary stage, especially when linked to a broader pattern of similar frauds involving government lands as part of a larger conspiracy risks undermining the integrity of multiple ongoing investigations and judicial processes. Such a decision would be detrimental to the investigation of similar fraudulent schemes against public assets.

Shivani Tyagi vs State Of UP 2024 INSC 343- S 389 CrPC- Acid Attack Case – Suspension Of Sentence

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 389 - The mere factum of sufferance of incarceration for a particular period, in a case where life imprisonment is imposed, cannot be a reason for invocation of power under Section 389 Cr.PC without referring to the relevant factors- Disposal of appeals against conviction, (especially in cases where life imprisonment is imposed for serious offences), within a short span of time may not be possible in view of the number of pending cases. In such circumstances if it is said that disregarding the other relevant factors and parameters for the exercise of power under Section 389, Cr. PC, likelihood of delay and incarceration for a particular period can be taken as a ground for suspension of sentence and to enlarge a convict on bail, then, in almost every such case, favourable invocation of said power would become inevitable- Such an interpretation would also go against public interest and social security. In such cases giving preference over appeals where sentence is suspended, in the matter of hearing or adopting such other methods making an early hearing possible could be resorted. We shall not be understood to have held that irrespective of inordinate delay in consideration of appeal and long incarceration undergone the power under the said provision cannot be invoked. In short, we are of the view that each case has to be examined on its own merits and based on the parameters, to find out whether the sentence imposed on the appellant(s) concerned should be suspended during the pendency of the appeal and the appellant(s) should be released on bail. (Para 9)- Acid Attack - An acid attack may completely strip off the victim of her basic human right to live a decent human life owing to permanent disfiguration- In appeals involving such serious offence(s), serious consideration of all parameters should be made. (Para 11)Aniruddha Khanwalkar vs Sharmila Das 2024 INSC 342 – S 204 CrPC – Summoning Of Accused

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 204- High Court set aside the summoning order against the accused person under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC- Allowing appeal, SC observed: For summoning of an accused, prima facie case is to be made out on the basis of allegations in the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence led by the complainant.

Sanju Ranjan Nayar vs Jayaraj 2024 INSC 331 – S 482 CrPC

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- High Court quashed the First Information Report for the offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - Allowing appeal, SC held: despite the accused having been exonerated in the departmental proceedings yet the competent authority, vide Annexure P3 proceeded to accord sanction for prosecution. The High Court, in our considered view, failed to account for the principles enunciated by this Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., (1992) SCC Suppl.1 33.Ramayan Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2024 INSC 323- Bail

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 439- Grant of bail involves the exercise of a discretionary power which ought not to be used arbitrarily, capriciously- and injudiciouslygrant of bail involves the exercise of a discretionary power which ought not to be used arbitrarily, capriciously- and injudiciously - Referred to Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, on certain parameters on which the correctness of an order granting bail must be evaluated and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118. [Allowing appeal, SC held:High Court ought not to have granted bail in relation to the proceedings emanating from the FIR on account of (i) the seriousness of the crime- (ii) the conduct of the accused person(s)- and (iii) the overall impact of the crime on society at large i.e., the accused person(s) were involved in a broad daylight murder which led to the closure of a market for a prolonged period of 10 (ten) days due to their overwhelming influence in the area.]
Maneesha Yadav vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2024 INSC 322 – S 482 CrPC – Filing of Chargesheet

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 -Merely because the charge-sheet is filed cannot be a ground for the High Court to not invoke its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.-The Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint at the stage of quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, if taken at its face value, must disclose the commission of an offence and make out a case against the accused- Quashing FIR against appellants, SC observed: Merely because the appellants are close relatives of the Manager or Director of the said institute, cannot be a ground to involve them in criminal proceedings. Unless some material was placed on record to show that the appellants herein were in-charge of 5 the affairs of the said institute or had any role to play in the management of the institute or were involved in inducing the complainant and other students to give them admission against the unrecognized seats- in our view, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be nothing else but an abuse of process of law.

Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar vs State Of Karnataka 2024 INSC 320 – S 378 CrPC – S 27 Evidence Act

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 378,386- scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:-(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity- (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record- (c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record- The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court - H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 581 and Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022) 3 SCC 471. (Para 36-42)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 27- The statement of an accused recorded by a police officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is basically a memorandum of confession of the accused recorded by the Investigating Officer during interrogation which has been taken down in writing. The confessional part of such statement is inadmissible and only the part which distinctly leads to discovery of fact is admissible in evidence when the Investigating Officer steps into the witness box for proving such disclosure statement, he would be required to narrate what the accused stated to him. The Investigating Officer essentially testifies about the conversation held between himself and the accused which has been taken down into writing leading to the discovery of incriminating fact(s) - Referred to State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya AIR 1960 SC 1125. (Para 58-60) - mere exhibiting of memorandum prepared by the Investigating Officer during investigation cannot tantamount to proof of its contents. While testifying on oath, the Investigating Officer would be required to narrate the sequence of events which transpired leading to the recording of the disclosure statement - Referred to Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1396, Subramanya v. State of Karnataka 2022 SCC Online SC 1400, Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1983) 1 SCC 143. (Para 62-65)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 60 - Oral evidence in all cases must be direct. The section leaves no ambiguity and mandates that no secondary/hearsay evidence can be given in case of oral evidence, except for the circumstances enumerated in the section. In case of a person who asserts to have heard a fact, only his evidence must be given in respect of the same. (Para 61)

State Of Arunachal Pradesh vs Kamal Agarwal 2024 INSC 317 – S 482 CrPC – Civil Nature Criminal Case

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 -Quashing a cheating case, SC observed: The matter was purely civil in nature. It was a case of money advancing for which no written document was executed to indicate its purpose or import as such whether it was a loan advance or an advance payment for transfer of property being land/building situate in Jaipur, is not borne out from any records. Such claim of the complainant that it was for transfer of property for land/building prescribed above, would be a matter of evidence to be led and established in the Court of law rather than the police investigating the same and finding out. It is not the case of complainant as stated in FIR that the plot/land as alleged by them which was to be transferred to them did not exist or had been sold or transferred to somebody else and therefore, there was an element of cheating by the accused persons. If the accused persons were not transferring the land and if the complainant could establish an agreement/contract with respect to the same in a Court of law, it ought to have filed a civil suit for appropriate relief.

Mukhtar Zaidi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2024 INSC 316 – S 200 CrPC – Protest Petition

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 200 - The right of the Complainant to file a petition under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is not taken away even if the Magistrate concerned does not direct that a Protest Petition be treated as a complaint- When the Magistrate is satisfied that a case is worth taking cognizance and fit for summoning the accused, the Magistrate ought to have followed the provisions and the procedure prescribed under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C- Referred to Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 8 SCC 27. (Para 9,10)
Yash Tuteja vs Union Of India 2024 INSC 301 – PMLA – Ss 200-204 CrPC

Prevention Of Money Laundering Act, 2002- Section 2,3- In the absence of the scheduled offence, there cannot be any proceeds of crime within the meaning of clause (u) of subSection (1) of Section 2 of the PMLA. If there are no proceeds of crime, the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is not made out. The reason is that existence of the proceeds of crime is a condition precedent for the applicability of Section 3 of the PMLA- Referred to Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement 2023 INSC 1029. (Para 4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 200-204-Prevention Of Money Laundering Act, 2002- Section 3,44- Once a complaint is filed before the Special Court, the provisions of Sections 200 to 204 of the Cr.PC will apply to the Complaint. There is no provision in the PMLA which overrides the provisions of Sections 200 to Sections 204 of Cr.PC. Hence, the Special Court will have to apply its mind to the question of whether a prima facie case of a commission of an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is made out in a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA. If the Special Court is of the view that no prima facie case of an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is made out, it must exercise the power under Section 203 of the Cr.PC to dismiss the complaint. If a prima facie case is made out, the Special Court can take recourse to Section 204 of the Cr. PC. (Para 6)

Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda vs State of Gujarat 2024 INSC 295 – Criminal Trial – Burden Of Proof – Appeal Against Acquittal 

Criminal Trial - Burden of Proof - Unless, under the relevant penal statute, there is a negative burden put on the accused or there is a reverse onus clause, the accused is not required to discharge any burden. In a case where there is a statutory presumption, after the prosecution discharges initial burden, the burden of rebuttal may shift on the accused. (Para 7)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378,386- While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court has to re-appreciate the evidence. After re-appreciating the evidence, the first question that needs to be answered by the Appellate Court is whether the view taken by the Trial Court was a plausible view that could have been taken based on evidence on record. -Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it is satisfied after re-appreciating the evidence that the only possible conclusion was that the guilt of the accused had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appellate Court cannot overturn the order of acquittal only on the ground that another view is possible. In other words, the judgment of acquittal must be found to be perverse. Unless the Appellate Court records such a finding, no interference can be made with the order of acquittal -An order of acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence of the accused. (Para 6)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 161,162 - Statements recorded by police under Section 161 of the CrPC cannot be used for any purpose except to contradict the witness. (Para 9)

Khengarbai Lakhabhai Dambhala vs State Of Gujarat 2024 INSC 285 – S 451 CrPC – Gujarat Prohibition Act

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 451 - Gujarat Prohibition Act- Section 98, 132- Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. would come into play when the article property seized during the course of inquiry or investigation is produced before the jurisdictional Court as per Clause (a) of Section 132 and the Court is called upon to pass appropriate orders for the proper custody of such article/property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or the trial -Section 98 deals with the Confiscation of the Articles whenever any offence punishable under the Act has been committed. The second part of sub-section (2) thereof would come into play when the Prohibition Officer or Police Officer sends the seized article liable to be confiscated but not required as an evidence, to the Collector as per Clause (b) of Section 132. (Para 14)


Vipin Sahni vs Central Bureau of Investigation 2024 INSC 284 – S 482,397 CrPC – Revision

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482, 397 - Limitation Act, 1963,Article 131 - In the event a revision is lawfully instituted before the High Court but the same is thereafter found to be not maintainable on some other ground, it would be open to the High Court to treat the same as a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C in order to do justice in that case. However, the reverse analogy may not apply in all cases and it would not be open to the High Court to blindly convert or treat a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C as one filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C., without reference to other issues, including limitation. When the specific remedy of revision was available, it could not have ignored the same and filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Para 25)- The limitation period for filing a criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C, be it before the High Court or the Sessions Court, is 90 days. However, there is no limitation prescribed for invocation of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and it can be at any time. [In this case, the court noted that Long after the expiry of the limitation period of 90 days, the CBI filed a petition before the High Court at Allahabad under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This was obviously to get over the hurdle of the limitation for filing of a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C, the court said]. (Para 23)

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 415-420 -Ingredients required to constitute an offence of cheating - Referred to Ram Jas v. State of U.P.(1970) 2 SCC 740 : ‘(i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him- (ii) (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property- or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived- and (iii) in cases covered by (ii) (b), the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shilpa Jain 2024 INSC 278 – Revenue Records – S 482 CrPC

Revenue Records - Revenue records are not documents of title- and nor would any findings pursuant to revenue proceedings under the Code confer any rights, title or interest - Questions of title can only be determined by a civil court of competent jurisdiction.

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 - Principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC vis-à-vis the quashing of an FIR - Referred to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 - Interplay between civil disputes and criminal proceedings - Referred to Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751 - Neither does the present case satisfy any of the parameters laid down by this Court in Bhajan Lal (Supra) warranting the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC vis-à-vis the quashing of an FIR- and nor can the allegation(s) levelled against the accused person(s) be classified as ‘purely civil in nature’ or merely ‘cloaked as a criminal offence’. Undoubtedly, the genesis of the present dispute emanates from civil proceedings qua the possession of the Suit Property, however, the dispute in its current avatar i.e. as is discernible from the allegation levelled against the Respondents in the FIR, has certainly undergone a metamorphosis into a criminal dispute which ought not to have been scuttled at the threshold, and in fact ought to have been considered on its own merits, in accordance with law. (Para 7)
Vikas Chandra vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2024 INSC 261 – Ss 204, 482, 173(2) – Ss 306,107 IPC – Abetment Of Suicide

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 306 -Mere statement in suicide note that ' X will be responsible for his suicide’ would not be a ground at all to issue summons to X to face the trial for the offence under Section 306, IPC. (Para 24)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 204, 482- A petition filed under Section 482, Cr.PC, for quashing an order summoning the accused is maintainable - while exercising the power to consider the legality of a summons issued by a Magistrate, certainly it is the duty of the Court to look into the question as to whether the learned Magistrate had applied his mind to form an opinion as to the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding further and in that regard to issue summons to face the trial for the offence concerned. In this context, we think it appropriate to state that one should understand that ‘taking cognizance’, empowered under Section 190, Cr.PC, and ‘issuing process’, empowered under Section 204, Cr.PC, are different and distinct. (Para 14)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 204- Issuance of summons is a serious matter and, therefore, shall not be done mechanically and it shall be done only upon satisfaction on the ground for proceeding further in the matter against a person concerned based on the materials collected during the inquiry - sine qua non for exercise of the power under Section 204, Cr.PC, to issue process is the subjective satisfaction regarding the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding- while conducting an inquiry, the Magistrate could go into the merits of the evidence collected by the investigating agency to determine whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. (Para 9- 13)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 173(2) - When a Final Report under Section 173 (2), Cr.PC, is filed before the Magistrate, which happens to be a negative report, usually called a “closure report”, he gets the following four choices to be adopted, taking into account the position obtained in the case concerned: (1) to accept the report and drop the Court proceedings (2) to direct further investigation to be made by the police (3) to investigate himself or refer for the investigation to be made by another Magistrate under Section 159, Cr.PC, (4) to take cognizance of the offence under Section 200, Cr.PC, as a private complaint when the materials are sufficient in his opinion and if the complainant is prepared for that course. (Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 107,306 -In order to bring out an offence under Section 306, IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107, IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306, IPC - Referred to M Vijayakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu 2024 INSC 177 - What matters in deciding the question whether there is ground for proceeding against a particular person and to issue summons to him to face the trial for the offence under Section 306, IPC is whether the complaint and the materials collected during the inquiry/investigation prima facie disclose mens rea on the part of the accused to bring about suicide of the victim. (Para 18-19)

Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund  vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 258 – Ss 378 CrPC – Circumstantial Evidence

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 378,386- Unless the finding of acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible, interference with the same would not be warranted - The High Court could have interfered in the criminal appeal only if it came to the conclusion that the findings of the trial Judge were either perverse or impossible- In any case, even if two views are possible and the trial Judge found the other view to be more probable, an interference would not have been warranted by the High Court, unless the view taken by the learned trial Judge was a perverse or impossible view. ((Para 9,19-20)

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - It is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established - The accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused -There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’ - The facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty - The circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.- There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused.(Para 7)

Pankaj Singh vs State Of Haryana 2024 INSC 254 – S 114A Evidence Act- Presumption Of Innocence – S 294 CrPC

Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 114A - The condition precedent for applicability of Section 114A of the Evidence Act is that the prosecution must be for the offence of rape under various clauses set out therein under sub-Section (2) of Section 376 of the IPC - When this condition is not met, the presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act will not apply, and the burden will be on the prosecution to prove that the sexual intercourse was without the consent of the Prosecutrix. (Para 11)

Criminal Trial - Unless there is a specific legislative provision which puts a negative burden on the accused, there is no burden on the accused to lead evidence for proving his innocence. (Para 11)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 294 -The essential ingredient of sub-Section (1) of Section 294 of the Cr.PC is that when any document is produced by the prosecution or the accused, the parties shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document - Even if a particular document is not disputed, the Court has the discretion to read or not to read the same in evidence without formal proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. The Court always has the power to require the signature to be proved. (Para 21)

Sabita Paul vs State Of West Bengal 2024 INSC 245 – Anticipatory Bail – Parity

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - Grant of bail based on parity is not a claim of right - While applying this principle of parity, the Court is required to focus on the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration - Referred to Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement - [In this case, prime accused was granted bail and the role played by the mother accused was only to further the alleged acts of her son and she has not acted independently, to further aggravate the situation - So court confirmed anticipatory bail granted to her]AM Mohan vs State 2024 INSC 233 – Ss 415,420 IPC – S 482 CrPC

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 415,420 -For attracting the provision of Section 420 of IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are made out and the person cheated must have been dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any person- or to make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. In other words, for attracting the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, it must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses: (i) the deception of any person- (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person- and (iii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement - The dishonest inducement is the sine qua non to attract the provisions of Sections 415 and 420 of IPC.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- There is nothing in the words of this section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court -Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge-sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court - Referred to Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home (2019) 11 SCC 706 : 2018 INSC 1060 and Haji Iqbal alias Bala through S.P.O.A. v. State of U.P. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 946 : 2023 INSC 688. (Para 21-22)
Ekene Godwin vs State Of Tamil Nadu 2024 INSC 229 – S 148 Evidence Act – S 242 CrPC
Criminal Trial - When the examination-in-chief of a material prosecution witness is being recorded, the presence of the Advocate for the accused is required. He has a right to object to a leading or irrelevant question being asked to the witness. If the trial is conducted in such a manner, an argument of prejudice will be available to the accused - Trial Court ought to provide a legal aid Advocate to the appellantsaccused so that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses could have been recorded in the presence of the Advocate representing the accused. (Para 5-6)
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 242- Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 138 - In a warrant case, in view of the proviso to the sub-section (3) of Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , the Magistrate, by recording reasons, can permit cross examination of a witness to be postponed till a particular witness or witnesses are examined -The normal rule is that witnesses shall be examined in the order laid down in Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Sub-section (3) of Section 242 of the Cr.PC is the exception to the rule. (Para 6)Dr Sonia Verma vs State Of Haryana 2024 INSC 227 – S 482 CrPC – Civil Dispute With Cloak Of Criminality

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 – Appeal against judgment of High Court refusing to quash criminal proceedings against accused – SC held: A closer examination of the surrounding facts and circumstances fortifies the conclusion that an attempt has been made by the Respondent to shroud a civil dispute with a cloak of criminality- when the High Court was apprised of such a matter wherein the substance of the criminal complaint served only to cast doubt on the validity of a commercial transaction (in this case, a sale deed for the transfer of property), and the appropriate civil remedy was already being pursued, the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings.

Apoorva Arora vs State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi) 2024 INSC 223 – S 67,67A IT Act – Vulgarity & Profanities Not Obscenity

Information Technology Act, 2000- Section 67 - Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 292- “Obscenity” has been similarly defined in Section 292 and Section 67 as material which is: i. lascivious- or ii. appeals to the prurient interest- or iii. its effect tends to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it. However, the difference between them is only that Section 67 is a special provision that applies when the obscene material is published or transmitted in the electronic form- The law on determining obscenity has been summarised and reiterated in Ajay Goswami v. Union of India : i. Obscenity must be judged with regard to contemporary mores and national standards. 49 ii. The work must be judged as a whole and the alleged offending material must also be separately examined to judge whether they are so grossly obscene that they are likely to deprave and corrupt the reader or viewer.50 There must be a clear and present danger that has proximate and direct nexus with the material. iii. All sex-oriented material and nudity per se are not always obscene.52 iv. The effect of the work must be judged from the standard of an average adult human being. Content cannot be regulated from the benchmark of what is appropriate for children as then the adult population would be restricted to read and see only what is fit for children. Likewise, regulation of material cannot be as per the standard of a hypersensitive man and must be judged as per an “ordinary man of common sense and prudence”Where art and obscenity are mixed, it must be seen whether the artistic, literary or social merit of the work overweighs its obscenity and makes the obscene content insignificant or trivial. In other words, there must be a preponderating social purpose or profit for the work to be constitutionally protected as free speech. Similarly, a different approach may have to be used when the material propagates ideas, opinions, and information of public interest as then the interest of society will tilt the balance in favour of protecting the freedom of speech (for example, with medical textbooks). vi. The Court must perform the task of balancing what is artistic and what is obscene. To perform this delicate exercise, it can rely on the evidence of men of literature, reputed and recognised authors to assess whether there is obscenity (Para 10-25)

Information Technology Act, 2000- Section 67 - Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 292- The enquiry under Section 292 of the IPC or under Section 67 of the IT Act does not hinge on whether the language or words are decent, or whether they are commonly used in the country. Rather, the inquiry is to determine whether the content is lascivious, appeals to prurient interests, or tends to deprave and corrupt the minds of those in whose hands it is likely to fall - Vulgarity and profanities do not per se amount to obscenity. While a person may find vulgar and expletive-filled language to be distasteful, unpalatable, uncivil, and improper, that by itself is not sufficient to be ‘obscene’. Obscenity relates to material that arouses sexual and lustful thoughts, which is not at all the effect of the abusive language or profanities that have been employed in the episode. Rather, such language may evoke disgust, revulsion, or shock -the standard for determination cannot be an adolescent’s or child’s mind, or a hypersensitive person who is susceptible to such influences -The metric to assess obscenity and legality of any content cannot be that it must be appropriate to play in the courtroom while maintaining the court’s decorum and integrity. Such an approach unduly curtails the freedom of expression that can be exercised and compels the maker of the content to meet the requirements of judicial propriety, formality, and official language- The process and method that must be followed to objectively judge whether the material is obscene: The court must consider the work as a whole and then the specific portions that have been alleged to be obscene in the context of the whole work to arrive at its conclusion. Further, the court must first step into the position of the creator to understand what he intends to convey from the work and whether it has any literary or artistic value. It must then step into the position of the reader or viewer who is likely to consume the work and appreciate the possible influence on the minds of such reader- the availability of content that contains profanities and swear words cannot be regulated by criminalising it as obscene. Apart from being a non-sequitur, it is a disproportionate and excessive measure that violates freedom of speech, expression, and artistic creativity. (Para 34-36)

Information Technology Act, 2000- Section 67A - Section 67A criminalises publication, transmission, causing to publish or transmit – in electronic form – any material that contains sexually explicit act or conduct. Though the three expressions “explicit”, “act”, and “conduct” are open-textured and are capable of encompassing wide meaning, the phrase may have to be seen in the context of ‘obscenity’ as provided in Section 67. Thus, there could be a connect between Section 67A and Section 67 itself. For example, there could be sexually explicit act or conduct which may not be lascivious. Equally, such act or conduct might not appeal to prurient interests. On the contrary, a sexually explicit act or conduct presented in an artistic or a devotional form may have exactly the opposite effect, rather than tending to deprave and corrupt a person - When there is no allegation of any ‘sexually explicit act or conduct’ in the complaint but only about about excessive usage of vulgar expletives, swear words, and profanities, Section 67A does not get attracted. (Para 46-47)
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 - A court must exercise its jurisdiction to quash an FIR or criminal complaint when the allegations made therein, taken prima facie, do not disclose the commission of any offence.(Para 48)
Puneet Sabharwal vs CBI 2024 INSC 221 – S 227 CrPC – Discharge – Probative Value Of Orders Of Income Tax Authorities In Corruption Case

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 228- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -Income Tax Act, 1961 -In this case, the accused against whom charges were framed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, seek to rely upon findings recorded by authorities under the Income Tax Act- SC held: The scope of adjudication in both the proceedings are markedly different and therefore the findings in the latter cannot be a ground for discharge of the Accused Persons in the former. The proceedings under the Income Tax Act and its evidentiary value remains a matter of trial and they cannot be considered as conclusive proof for discharge of an accused - The probative value of the Orders of the Income Tax Authorities, including the Order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the subsequent Assessment Orders, are not conclusive proof which can be relied upon for discharge of the accused persons. These orders, their findings, and their probative value, are a matter for a full-fledged trial.

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 228- A strong suspicion founded on material on record which is ground for presuming the existence of factual ingredients of an offence would justify the framing of charge against an accused person [Referred to Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 45 561 Paragraph 11]. The Court is only required to consider judicially whether the material warrants the framing of charge without blindly accepting the decision of the prosecution [Referred to State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Ors. (1977) 2 SCC 699 Paragraph 10]

X vs A 2024 INSC 216 – Rape By Giving Promise To Marry – Quashing

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 375 - Rape by giving promise to marry - Appeal against HC judgment Quashing criminal proceedings against accused dismissed- The allegations in the FIR so also in the restatement made before the Dy. S.P.,, do not, on their face, indicate that the promise by accused No. 1 was false or that the complainant engaged in the sexual relationship on the basis of such false promise. This apart from the fact that the prosecutrix has changed her version. The version of events given by the prosecutrix in the restatement is totally contrary to the one given in the FIR -Referred to Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608 and Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1032. (Para 15)
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 - The power of quashing the criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare casees- the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint. (Para 18)

Srikant Upadhyay vs State of Bihar 2024 INSC 202 – Ss 82,83, 438 – Anticipatory Bail – Proclamation

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 438, 83- In the absence of any interim order, pendency of an application for anticipatory bail shall not bar the Trial Court in issuing/proceeding with steps for proclamation and in taking steps under Section 83, Cr.PC, in accordance with law. (Para 23)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 438 -Filing of an Anticipatory Bail Application by the petitioners-accused through their advocate cannot be said to be an appearance of the petitioners-accused in a competent Court, so far as proceeding initiated under Section 82/83 of the Code is concerned - Approved Savitaben Govindbhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat 2004 SCC OnLine Guj 345
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 438 -Nothing prevents the court from adjourning such an application without passing an interim order - In view of the proviso under Section 438(1), Cr.PC, it cannot be contended that if, at the stage of taking up the matter for consideration, the Court is not rejecting the application, it is bound to pass an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail- Approved Shrenik Jayantilal Jain and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra Through EOW Unit II, Mumbai 2014 SCC Online Bom 549. (Para 23)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 438 -The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously, defying orders and keep absconding is not entitled to such grant. (Para 24)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 82-The sine qua non for initiation of an action under Section 82, Cr. PC is prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court concerned. (Para 10)

Thakore Umedsing Nathusing vs State Of Gujarat 2024 INSC 198 – Criminal Trial- Circumstantial Evidence- Appeal Against Acquittal- S 25 Evidence Act

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - The principles required to bring home the charges in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence have been crystalized in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 - “(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely “may be”, fully established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. (Para 23)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 378,386- The scope of interference by the High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378(1)(b) CrPC were reiterated in the case of H.D. Sundara and 10 Others v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581- (a) The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence- (b) The appellate Court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re­appreciate the oral and documentary evidence- (c) The appellate Court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re­appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record- (d) If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate Court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible- and (e) The appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible. (Para 24)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 25 -Confession of an accused in custody recorded by a police officer is inadmissible in evidence as the same would be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Thus, that part of the statement of A1 as recorded in the report/communication (Exhibit­96), wherein he allegedly confessed to the crime of murder of the jeep driver and looting the jeep and named the other accused persons as particeps criminis is totally inadmissible and cannot be read in evidence except to the extent provided under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.- disclosure statement of accused cannot be read in evidence against the other accused - Referred to Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1964 SC 1184- The interrogation note of accused being hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act cannot be read in evidence for any purpose whatsoever. (Para 29,36)

Criminal Trial -Referred to Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 11 SCC 724 - the solitary circumstance of recovery of blood­stained weapons cannot constitute such evidence which can be considered sufficient to convict an accused for the charge of murder- Even if it is assumed for a moment that such recoveries were effected, the same did not lead to any conclusive circumstance in form of Serological report establishing the presence of the same blood group as that of the deceased and hence they do not further the cause of prosecution. In addition thereto, we find that the prosecution failed to lead the link evidence mandatorily required to establish the factum of safe keeping of the muddamal articles and hence, the recoveries became irrelevant (Para 35)

Dablu Kujur vs State Of Jharkhand 2024 INSC 197 - S 173 CrPC

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 173 – Supreme Court expressed concern after it noticed that the investigating officers while submitting the chargesheet/Police Report do not comply with the requirements of Section 173 CrPC- Though it is true that the form of the report to be submitted under Section 173(2) has to be prescribed by the State Government and each State Government has its own Police Manual to be followed by the police officers while discharging their duty, the mandatory requirements required to be complied with by such officers in the Police Report/Chargesheet are laid down in Section 173, more particularly sub-section (2) thereof – Report of police officer on the completion of investigation shall contain the following: – (i) A report in the form prescribed by the State Government stating- (a) the names of the parties- (b) the nature of the information- (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case- (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom- (e) whether the accused has been arrested- (f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties- (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170. (h) Whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under [sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB] or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)” (ii) If upon the completion of investigation, there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, the Police officer in charge shall clearly state in the Report about the compliance of Section 169 Cr.PC. (iii) When the report in respect of a case to which Section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report, all the documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation- and the statements recorded under Section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses. (iv) In case of further investigation, the Police officer in charge shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed and shall also comply with the details mentioned in the above sub para (i) to (iii) – The officer in charge of the police stations in every State shall strictly comply with the afore-stated directions, and the non-compliance thereof shall be strictly viewed by the concerned courts in which the Police Reports are submitted- Once from the material produced along with the chargesheet, the court is satisfied about the commission of an offence and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) is pending or not. The pendency of the further investigation qua the other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of chargesheet would neither vitiate the chargesheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was an incomplete chargesheet or that the chargesheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C – Referred to CBI vs. Kapil Wadhwan (Para 12- 17)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 173 – Though there are various reports required to be submitted by the police in charge of the police station before, during and after the investigation as contemplated in Chapter XII of Cr.P.C., it is only the report forwarded by the police officer to the Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. that can form the basis for the competent court for taking cognizance thereupon. A chargesheet is nothing but a final report of the police officer under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. It is an opinion or intimation of the investigating officer to the concerned court that on the material collected during the course of investigation, an offence appears to have been committed by the particular person or persons, or that no offence appears to have been committed- When such a Police Report concludes that an offence appears to have been committed by a particular person or persons, the Magistrate has three options: (i) he may accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process, (ii) he may direct further investigation under sub-section (3) of Section 156 and require the police to make a further report, or (iii) he may disagree with the report and discharge the accused or drop the proceedings. If such Police Report concludes that no offence appears to have been committed, the Magistrate again has three options: (i) he may accept the report and drop the proceedings, or (ii) he may disagree with the report and 9 taking the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or (iii) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under sub-section (3) of Section 156.

Naresh Kumar vs State Of Karnataka 2024 INSC 196 – S 482 CrPC – Quashing Of Criminal Proceedings Essentially Of Civil Nature

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19973- Section 482- Though inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature -Where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising 8 the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Referred to Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673- Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 14 SCC 626 and Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90. (Para 5-6)- Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 415-420- A mere breach of contract, by one of the parties, would not attract prosecution for criminal offence in every case - Referred to Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2023) 5 SCC 360 - Every breach of contract would not give rise to the offence of cheating, and it is required to be shown that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293. (Para 7) [In this case, quashing the criminal proceedings, SC observed: The dispute between the parties was not only essentially of a civil nature but in this case the dispute itself stood settled later as we have already discussed above. We see no criminal element here and consequently the case here is nothing but an abuse of the process.

Anil Mishra vs State Of UP 2024 INSC 189 – S 482 CrPC

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- Principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by High Courts vis-à-vis quashing of an FIR, criminal proceeding or complaint reiterated - Referred to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 [Appellant neither entered into any settlement with the Accused Persons nor was courting any such idea- High Court proceeded to quash the FIR- and the proceedings emanating thereof in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC- HC judgment set aside]Shailesh Kumar vs State Of UP 2024 INSC 143 :: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 776 – S 172 CrPC – Case Diary – Ss 145,161,165 Evidence Act
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 172 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 145,161 - When a police officer uses case diary for refreshing his memory, an accused automatically gets a right to peruse that part of the prior statement as recorded in the police officer’s diary by taking recourse to Section 145 or Section 161, as the case may be, of the Evidence Act -The accused has a right to cross-examine a police officer as to the recording made in the case diary whenever the police officer uses it to refresh his memory. Though Section 161 of the Evidence Act does not restrict itself to a case of refreshing memory by perusing a case diary alone, there is no exclusion for doing so. Similarly, in a case where the court uses a case diary for the purpose of contradicting a police officer, then an accused is entitled to peruse the said statement so recorded which is relevant, and cross-examine the police officer on that count. What is relevant in such a case is the process of using it for the purpose of contradiction and not the conclusion. To make the position clear, though Section 145 read with Section 161 of the Evidence Act deals with the right of a party including an accused, such a right is limited and restrictive when it is applied to Section 172 of CrPC. Suffice it is to state, that the said right cannot be declined when the author of a case diary uses it to refresh his memory or the court uses it for the purpose of contradiction - Referred to Balakram v.State of Uttarakhand and Others, (2017) 7 SCC 668 (Para 26,27)
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 172 - It is the responsibility and duty of the Investigating Officer to make a due recording in his case diary, there is no corresponding right under subsection (3) of Section 172 of CrPC for accused to seek production of such diaries, or to peruse them, except in a case where they are used by a police officer maintaining them to refresh his memory, or in a case where the court uses them for the purpose of contradicting the police officer. In such a case, the provision of Section 145 or Section 161, as the case may be, of the Evidence Act, shall apply - An improper maintenance of a case diary by the Investigating Officer will not enure to the benefit of the accused. Prejudice has to be shown and proved by the accused despite non-compliance of Section 172 of CrPC in a given case. However, this does not take away the mandatory duty of the police officer to maintain it properly. As the court is the guardian of truth, it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to satisfy the court when it seeks to contradict him. The right of the accused is, therefore, very restrictive and limited. Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, (1983) 3 SCC 344, Baleshwar Mandal v. State of Bihar, (1997) 7 SCC 219, Manoj and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353. (Para 22- 25)
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 172 , 154 -Information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence shall first be entered in a book kept by the officer in charge of police station and not in the General Diary. Therefore, it is amply clear that a General Diary entry cannot precede the registration of FIR, except in cases where preliminary inquiry is needed. While an FIR is to be registered on an information disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence, so also a recording is thereafter required to be made in the case diary - Referred to Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Others, (2014) 2 SCC 1 (Para 28)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 165 -Power of the court to put questions and order production of documents in the course of trial. -This is a general and omnibus power given to the court when in search of the truth. Such a power is to be exercised against any witness before it, both in a civil as well as a criminal case. The object is to discover adequate proof of a relevant fact and, therefore, for that purpose, the Judge is authorised and empowered to ask any question of his choice. When such a power is exercised by the court, there is no corresponding right that can be extended to a party to cross-examine any witness on an answer given in reply to a question put forth by it, except with its leave - Referred to Ram Chander v. State of Haryana, (1981) 3 SCC 191 (Para 29-30)
Criminal Investigation - Role of Investigating Officer - An investigation of a crime is a lawful search of men and materials relevant in reconstructing and recreating the circumstances of an offence said to have been committed. With the evidence in possession, an Investigating Officer shall travel back in time and, therefore tick off the time zone to reach the exact time and date of the occurrence of the incident under investigation. The goal of investigation is to determine the truth which would help the Investigating Officer to form a correct opinion on the culpability of the named accused or suspect. Once such an opinion is formed on a fair assessment of the evidence collected in the investigation, the role of the court comes into play when the evidence i.e. oral, documentary, circumstantial, scientific, electronic, etc. is presented for and on behalf of the prosecution. In its journey towards determining the truth, a court shall 8 play an active role while acknowledging the respective roles meant to be played by the prosecution and the defence. During the entire play, the rules of evidence ought to be honoured, sprinkled with the element of fairness through due procedure. Adequate opportunities would have to be given to challenge every assumption. Administration of criminal justice lies in determining the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The power of the State to prosecute an accused commences with investigation, collection of evidence and presentation before the Court for acceptance. 18.The investigating agency, the prosecutor and the defence are expected to lend ample assistance to the court in order to decipher the truth. As the investigating agency is supposed to investigate a crime, its primary duty is to find out the plausible offender through the materials collected. It may or may not be possible for the said agency to collect every material, but it has to form its opinion with the available material. There is no need for such an agency to fix someone as an accused at any cost. It is ultimately for the court to decide who the culprit is. Arvind Kumar @ Nemichand & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 11 SCR 237, Common Cause and Others v. Union of India, (2015) 6 SCC 332. (Para 17-18)
 

Shiv Jatia vs Gian Chand Malick 2024 INSC 142
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 204-For issuing the order of summoning, the Magistrate could not have relied upon the same material which was before him when he passed the order calling for the report under Section 202 of the Cr.PC -The reason is that, obviously, he was not satisfied that the material was sufficient to pass the summoning order - The order issuing process has drastic consequences. Such orders require the application of mind. Such orders cannot be passed casually. (Para 11)

N Manogar vs Inspector Of Police 2024 INSC 130 :: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 685 – Scope Of S 319 CrPC
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 319 -Discretionary powers under Section 319 of the CrPC ought to have been used sparingly where circumstances of the case so warrant - crucial test to be applied is one which is more that prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction - Referred to Sagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2022) 6 SCC 389 and Hardeep Singh v State of Punjab & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 92.

Kalinga @ Kushal vs State Of Karnataka 2024 INSC 124 :: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 391 – Extra Judicial Confession – Appeal Against Acquittal- Circumstantial Evidence
Criminal Trial - Extra Judicial Confession - A weak type of evidence and is generally used as a corroborative link to lend credibility to the other evidence on record - Extra judicial confession must be accepted with great care and caution. If it is not supported by other evidence on record, it fails to inspire confidence and in such a case, it shall not be treated as a strong piece of evidence for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion of guilt. Furthermore, the extent of acceptability of an extra judicial confession depends on the trustworthiness of the witness before whom it is given and the circumstances in which it was given. The prosecution must establish that a confession was indeed made by the accused, that it was voluntary in nature and that the contents of the confession were true. The standard required for proving an extra judicial confession to the satisfaction of the Court is on the higher side and these essential ingredients must be established beyond any reasonable doubt. The standard becomes even higher when the entire case of the prosecution necessarily rests on the extra judicial confession.- Referred to Chandrapal v. State of Chattisgarh (2022) SCC On Line SC 705. (Para 14-15)
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 378,386- The High Court, in exercise of appellate powers, may reappreciate the entire evidence. However, reversal of an order of acquittal is not to be based on mere existence of a different view or a mere difference of opinion. To permit so would be in violation of the two views theory - In order to reverse an order of acquittal in appeal, it is essential to arrive at a finding that the order of the Trial Court was perverse or illegal- or that the Trial Court did not fully appreciate the evidence on record- or that the view of the Trial Court was not a possible view- The anomaly of having two reasonably possible viewsin a matter isto be resolved in favour of the accused. For, after acquittal, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets reinforced - Referred to Sanjeev v. State of H.P. (2022) 6 SCC 294 (Para 25)
Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - “Panchsheel” principles - Essentially, circumstantial evidence comes into picture when there is absence of direct evidence. For proving a case on the basis of circumstantial evidence, it must be established that the chain of circumstances is complete. It must also be established that the chain of circumstances is consistent with the only conclusion of guilt. The margin of error in a case based on circumstantial evidence is minimal. For, the chain of circumstantial evidence is essentially meant to enable the court in drawing an inference. The task of fixing criminal liability upon a person on the strength of an inference must be approached with abundant caution. (Para 27)
Criminal Trial -A reasonable doubt is essentially a serious doubt in the case of the prosecution and minor inconsistencies are not to be elevated to the status of a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is one which renders the possibility of guilt as highly doubtful. It is also noteworthy that the purpose of criminal trial is not only to ensure that an innocent person is not punished, but it is also to ensure that the guilty does not escape unpunished. A judge owes this duty to the society and effective performance of this duty plays a crucial role in securing the faith of the common public in rule of law. Every case, wherein a guilty person goes unpunished due to any lacuna on the part of the investigating agency, prosecution or otherwise, shakes the conscience of the society at large and diminishes the value of the rule of law. (Para 29)
 

Deepak Kumar Shrivas vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2024 INSC 117 :: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 364- S 482 CrPC – Criminal Case – Civil Dispute – Police
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 - Appeal against HC judgment that refused to quash FIR allowed - Criminal prosecution should not be allowed to continue where the object to lodge the FIR is not for criminal prosecution and for punishing the offender for the offence committed but for recovery of money under coercion and pressure. (Para 16)
Police - As a law enforcement agency, the police force shoulders the vital responsibility of preserving public order, guarding social harmony, and upholding the foundations of justice -Police finds itself entangled in the irrelevant and trivial details of such unethical private issues, diverting the resources away from the pursuit of more consequential matters. The valuable time of the police is consumed in investigating disputes that seem more suited for civil resolution - The need for a judicious allocation of law enforcement resources, emphasizing the importance of channelling their efforts towards matters of greater societal consequence - Police should exercise heightened caution when drawn into dispute pertaining to such unethical transactions between private parties which appear to be prima facie contentious in light of previous inquiries or investigations. The need for vigilance on the part of the police is paramount, and a discerning eye should be cast upon cases where unscrupulous conduct appears to eclipse the pursuit of justice. This case exemplifies the need for a circumspect approach in discerning the genuine from the spurious and thus ensuring that the resources of the state are utilised for matters of true societal import. (Para 1,15)
Navin Kumar Rai vs Surendra Singh 2024 INSC 116 – S 482 CrPC – Registration Act
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 - While exercising such inherent powers what is required to be examined is only the prima facie existence of the offence sought to be quashed -t the Court was required to consider was whether any of the well-established grounds that are enumerated in judgments in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335- Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC OnLine 315 and Peethambaran v. State of Kerala 2023 SCC OnLine 553 , were made out or not. (Para 11)
Registration Act, 1908- Section 82 and 83 - Prosecution may be lodged by or with the permission of the Sub-Registrar in whose territory the offence has been committed. (Para 12)Tejashwi Prasad Yadav vs Hareshbhai Pranshankar Mehta 2024 INSC 108 – Defamation –
Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 499, 500 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482- Prosecution for defamation for the offence under Section 499, which is punishable under Section 500 of the IPC, cannot be quashed on the ground that the offending allegations have been withdrawn.Directorate Of Enforcement vs Niraj Tyagi 2024 INSC 106 :: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 311 – S 482 CrPC – Stay Of Investigation
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 -Without undermining the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC to quash the proceedings if the allegations made in the FIR or complaint prima facie do not constitute any offence against the accused, or if the criminal proceedings are found to be manifestly malafide or malicious, instituted with ulterior motive etc., we are of the opinion that the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.PC do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whims or caprice. The statutory power has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. In a way, by passing such orders of staying the investigations and restraining the investigating agencies from taking any coercive measure against the accused pending the petitions under Section 482 Cr.PC, the High Court has granted blanket orders restraining the arrest without the accused applying for the anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.PC - The direction not to arrest the accused or not to take coercive action against the accused in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC, would amount to an order under Section 438 Cr.PC, albeit without satisfaction of the conditions of the said provision, which is legally unacceptable - Referred to State of Telangana vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani 2017 (2) SCC 779- Strongly deprecates practice of the High Courts in staying the investigations or directing not to take coercive action against the accused pending petitions under Section 482 of Cr.PC - Referred to Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra (2021) SCC Online SC 315. (Para 20-22)
Precedent - Judicial comity and judicial discipline demands that higher courts should follow the law. The extraordinary and inherent powers of the court do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whims and caprice.

Mallappa vs State Of Karnataka 2024 INSC 104 :: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 288 – Criminal Trial – Presumption Of Innocence – Two Views Theory – Circumstantial Evidence

Criminal Trial - Presumption of Innocence - There is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, unless proven guilty. The presumption continues at all stages of the trial and finally culminates into a fact when the case ends in acquittal. The presumption of innocence gets concretized when the case ends in acquittal. It is so because once the Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, finds that the accused was not guilty, the presumption gets strengthened and a higher threshold is expected to rebut the same in appeal. (Para 24)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 378, 386 - Criminal Appeal against Acquittal - Principles summarized: (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive – inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary- (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge- (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed- (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal- (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts- (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court. (Para 36) - In the exercise of appellate powers, there is no inhibition on the High Court to re-appreciate or re-visit the evidence on record. However, the power of the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence is a qualified power, especially when the order under challenge is of acquittal. The first and foremost question to be asked is whether the Trial Court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due consideration to all material pieces of evidence. The second point for consideration is whether the finding of the Trial Court is illegal or affected by an error of law or fact. If not, the third consideration is whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a fairly possible view. A decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion. What is required is an illegality or perversity - Two-views theory - it comes into play when the appreciation of evidence results into two equally plausible views. However, the controversy is to be resolved in favour of the accused. For, the very existence of an equally plausible view in favour of innocence of the accused is in itself a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. Moreover, it reinforces the presumption of innocence. And therefore, when two views are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the accused is the safest course of action. Furthermore, it is also settled that if the view of the Trial Court, in a case of acquittal, is a plausible view, it is not open for the High Court to convict the accused by reappreciating the evidence. If such a course is permissible, it would make it practically impossible to settle the rights and liabilities in the eyes of law. In Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka (2015) 10 SCC 230 : [2015] 9 S.C.R. 381 and Sanjeev v. State of H.P. (2022) 6 SCC 294. (Para 25-26) - Setting aside an order of acquittal, which signifies a stronger presumption of innocence, on a mere change of opinion is not permissible. A low standard for turning an acquittal into conviction would be fraught with the danger of failure of justice. (Para 34)
Criminal Trial - In normal circumstances, where a testimony is duly explained and inspires confidence, the Court is not expected to reject the testimony of an interested witness, however, when the testimony is full of contradictions and fails to match evenly with the supporting evidence (the wound certificate, for instance), a Court is bound to sift and weigh the evidence to test its true weight and credibility. (Para 33)
Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - “Panchsheel” or five principles of circumstantial evidence -the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793] where the observations were made: “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.”- Referred to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 88. (Para 37-38)

Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh 2024 INSC 101 :: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 252 – S 482 CrPC – False Implication – Matrimonial Disputes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 -Appeal against HC order refusing to quash criminal proceedings against the Appellants for offences u/s. 420, 498A, 506 of the IPC & u/s. 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 , allowed - The phenomenon of false implication by way of general omnibus allegations in the course of matrimonial disputes is not unknown to this Court - The material on record neither discloses any particulars of the offences alleged nor discloses the specific role/allegations assigned to any of the Appellants in the commission of the offences - High Court in this case has failed to exercise due care and has mechanically permitted the criminal proceedings to continue despite specifically finding that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature - High Court had a duty to consider the allegations with great care and circumspection so as to protect against the danger of unjust prosecution -Referred to Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599] and Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P.

Vishal Noble Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2024 INSC 85 – S 482 CrPC, Ss 420, 467 IPC

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 - In recent years the machinery of criminal justice is being misused by certain persons for their vested interests and for achieving their oblique motives and agenda. Courts have therefore to be vigilant against such tendencies and ensure that acts of omission and commission having an adverse impact on the fabric of our society must be nipped in the bud - while entertaining an application for quashing an FIR at the initial stage, the test to be applied is whether the uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish the offence -Criminal cases where the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by continuation of a criminal prosecution should be quashed. [Referred to Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 ] (Para 22)
Non- Appearance of complainant - complainant has made grave allegations against the appellants herein and on whose behalf a charge-sheet has also been filed against such allegations has failed to appear before this Court to justify the same. Such acts would not only cause deep fissures and mistrust between people and also 14 unnecessarily burden the law courts and the criminal justice system - The non-appearance of the second respondent before this Court is indicative of his prejudicial attitude and temperament and his inability to justify any of the allegations against the appellants herein and therefore his absence in this proceeding. (Para 22-23)

Atamjit Singh vs State (NCT Of Delhi) 2024 INSC 84 – S 138 NI Act – S 482 CrPC – Cheque Bounce Complaint – Quashing

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 582 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Classification of the underlying debt or liability as being barred by limitation is a question that must be decided based on the evidence adduced by the parties -The question regarding the time barred nature of an underlying debt or liability in proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act is a mixed question of law and fact which ought not to be decided by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC [Referred to Yogesh Jain v. Sumesh Chadha ]

Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia vs State of Bihar 2024 INSC 77 – S 482 CrPC – Contract

Code of Criminal Procedure,1973- Section 482 - In the appropriate case, protection is to be accorded against unwanted criminal prosecution and from the prospect of unnecessary trial - Priyanka Mishra v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 978 and Vishnu Kumar Shukla v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1582. (Para 35)Sachin Garg vs State Of UP 2024 INSC 72 – Ss 204, 482 CrPC – Commercial Dispute Turned Into Criminal Case

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 204 - While it is true that at the stage of issuing summons a magistrate only needs to be satisfied with a prima facie case for taking cognizance, the duty of the magistrate is also to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding- At the stage of issue of summons, detailed reasoning as to why a Magistrate is issuing summons, however, is not necessary - Referred to Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 749] - Jagdish Ram vs State of Rajasthan and Another [(2004) 4 SCC 432] (Para 18)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 - It is true that the appellant could seek discharge in course of the proceeding itself before the concerned Court, but here we find that no case at all has been made out that would justify invoking the machinery of the Criminal Courts. The dispute, per se, is commercial in nature having no element of criminality - Criminal Proceedings quashed. (Para 19) CBI vs Kapil Wadhawan 2024 INSC 58 – S 173 CrPC :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 677 – Incomplete Charge Sheet – Default Bail

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 173 - Once from the material produced along with the chargesheet, the court is satisfied about the commission of an offence and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) is pending or not. The pendency of the further investigation qua the other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of chargesheet would neither vitiate the chargesheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was an incomplete chargesheet or that the chargesheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. - Though ordinarily all documents relied upon by the prosecution should accompany the chargesheet, nonetheless for some reasons, if all the documents are not filed along with the chargesheet, that reason by itself would not invalidate or vitiate the chargesheet. (Para 23)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 173 - The right of the investigating officer to pray for further investigation in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 173 is not taken away only because a chargesheet is filed under sub-section (2) thereof against the accused. (Para 23)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 173 - Statutory requirement of the report under Section 173 (2) would be complied with if the various details prescribed therein are included in the report. The report under Section 173 is an intimation to the court that upon investigation into the cognizable offence, the investigating officer has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the court to inquire into the offence and the necessary information is being sent to the court. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175 (5) - It is not necessary that all the details of the offence must be stated. (Para 22)

Raja Nayakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2024 INSC 56 – Criminal Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – S 313 CrPC – S 27 Evidence Act

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116=1984 INSC 121 - the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established - The accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused - There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’ - The facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty- The circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved - There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused - The suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent 10 unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (Para 8-9)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 27 - Referred to Pulukuri Kotayya and others v. King-Emperor 1946 SCC OnLine 47=AIR 1947 PC 67 - Only such statement which leads to recovery of incriminating material from a place solely and exclusively within the knowledge of the maker thereof would be admissible in evidence. (Para 13)
Criminal Trial - The sole circumstance of recovery of blood-stained weapon cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same was connected with the murder of the deceased by the accused - Referred to Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2011 SC 2769=2011 INSC 487. (Para 19)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 313- A case based on circumstantial evidence, the nonexplanation or false explanation of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as an additional link to complete the chain of circumstances. It can only be used to fortify the conclusion of guilt already arrived at on the basis of other proven circumstances - it is only after the prosecution discharges its duty of proving the case beyond all reasonable doubt that the false explanation or non-explanation of the accused could be taken into consideration. (Para 21)

Mariam Fasihuddin vs State 2024 INSC 49 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 623 – Ss 420,468,471 IPC – Cheating and Forgery- S 12(b) Passports Act -S 173(8) CrPC- Supplementary Report

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 420 - In order to attract the provisions of Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property. There are, thus, three components of this offence, i.e., (i) the deception of any person, (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person, and (iii) mens rea or dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducemen- For the offence of cheating, fraudulent and dishonest intention must exist from the inception when the promise or representation was made - Every deceitful act is not unlawful, just as not every unlawful act is deceitful. Some acts may be termed both as unlawful as well as deceitful, and such acts alone will fall within the purview of Section 420 IPC - A statement of fact is deemed ‘deceitful’ when it is false, and is knowingly or recklessly made with the intent that it shall be acted upon by another person, resulting in damage or loss- 'Cheating’ generally involves a preceding deceitful act that dishonestly induces a person to deliver any property or any part of a valuable security, prompting the induced person to undertake the said act, which they would not have done but for the inducement - The term ‘property’ employed in Section 420 IPC has a welldefined connotation. Every species of valuable right or interest that is subject to ownership and has an exchangeable value – is ordinarily understood as ‘property’. It also describes one’s exclusive right to possess, use and dispose of a thing. The IPC itself defines the term ‘moveable property’ as, “intended to include corporeal property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth.” Whereas immoveable property is generally understood to mean land, benefits arising out of land and things attached or permanently fastened to the earth. (Para 10-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 468 ,471- Two primary components that need to be fulfilled in order to establish the offence of ‘forgery’, namely: (i) that the accused has fabricated an instrument- and (ii) it was done with the intention that the forged document would be used for the purpose of cheating. Simply put, the offence of forgery requires the preparation of a false document with the dishonest intention of causing damage or injury - The offences of ‘forgery’ and ‘cheating’ intersect and converge, as the act of forgery is committed with the intent to deceive or cheat an individual. (Para 21-23)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 173(8) - The provision for submitting a supplementary report infers that fresh oral or documentary evidence should be obtained rather than reevaluating or reassessing the material already collected and considered by the investigating agency while submitting the initial police report, known as the chargesheet under Section 173(2) CrPC. In the absence of any new evidence found to substantiate the conclusions drawn by the investigating officer in the supplementary report, a Judicial Magistrate is not compelled to take cognizance, as such a report lacks investigative rigour and fails to satisfy the requisites of Section 173(8) CrPC. (Para 27)

Jay Shri vs State of Rajasthan 2024 INSC 48 – Ss 406,420 IPC -Converting Purely Civil Dispute Into Criminal Cases – Anticipatory Bail

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 406 - Mere breach of contract does not amount to an offence under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Caution against converting purely civil disputes into criminal cases - Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged - Anticipatory bail granted.Ramalingam vs N. Viswanathan 2024 INSC 45 – S 227 CrPC – Discharge

Code of Criminal Procedure,1973- Section 227 - Upheld Sessions Court order discharging accused - Expert witness examined by the complainant, who admittedly carried out a post-mortem on the body of the deceased, has categorically stated that the death of the deceased was natural - In the post-mortem, no injury was found on the chest or any other part of the body of the deceased.

Shadakshari vs State Of Karnataka 2024 INSC 42 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 429 – Ss 197, 482 CrPC – Sanction

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 197 - Section 197 Cr.PC does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service. It is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servants in the discharge of official duties - The object of such sanction for prosecution is to protect a public servant discharging official duties and functions from undue harassment by initiation of frivolous criminal proceedings. (Para 17-23)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 197 , 482 - The question whether accused was involved in fabricating official documents by misusing his official position as a public servant is a matter of trial. Certainly, a view can be taken that manufacturing of such documents or fabrication of records cannot be a part of the official duty of a public servant. (Para 25)
 
Suresh Garodia vs State of Assam 2024 INSC 39 – Rape Case Quashed – 34 Years Delay To Lodge FIR

Summary: In 2016, a woman complained that the accused raped her 34 years ago - In Final report Investigation Officer opined that the case was of a civil nature and filed only for the greed for the property of the appellant- Magistrate rejected this Final Report and took cognizance under Section 376/506 of IPC- HC rejected accused's plea challenging this order - Allowing appeal, SC held: Lodging a case after 34 years and that too on the basis of a bald statement that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of commission of offence, could itself be a ground to quash the proceedings. No explanation whatsoever is given in the FIR as to why the prosecutrix was keeping silent for a long period of 34 years. The material on record shows that the relationship was consensual, inasmuch as the son who is born out of the said relationship has been treated by the appellant as his son and all the facilities, including cash money, have been provided to him. (Para 13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 190 - Magistrate, while exercising his powers under Section 190 Cr.P.C., is not bound to accept the final report of the I.O. However, if the Magistrate disagrees with the finding of the I.O., the least that is expected of him is to give reasons as to why he disagrees with such a report and as to why he finds it necessary to take cognizance despite the negative report submitted by the I.O.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 - The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The Court would normally not embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint.
Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs Union of India 2024 INSC 24 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 743 – S 432 CrPC – Remission – Article 32 Constitution

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 432 -In a case where the trial has been transferred by this Court from a court of competent jurisdiction of a State to a court in another State, Government of the State within which the offender was sentenced is the appropriate Government which has the jurisdiction as well as competency to pass an order of remission under Section 432 of the CrPC. Therefore, it is not the Government of the State within whose territory the offence occurred or the convict is imprisoned which can assume the power of remission. (Para 33.6)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 432(2) -The expression “may” has to be interpreted as “shall” and as a mandatory requirement under sub-section (2) of Section 432 of the CrPC- It cannot be held that the expression “may” in the said provision is not mandatory nor can it be left to the whims and fancies of the appropriate Government either to seek or not to seek the opinion of the Presiding Judge or the Court before which the conviction had taken place.it cannot be held that the expression “may” in the said provision is not mandatory nor can it be left to the whims and fancies of the appropriate Government either to seek or not to seek the opinion of the Presiding Judge or the Court before which the conviction had taken place. (Para 52)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 432 - Factors that must be taken into account while entertaining an application for remission under the provisions of the CrPC, which are however not exhaustive - (a) The application for remission under Section 432 of the CrPC could be only before the Government of the State within whose territorial jurisdiction the applicant was convicted (appropriate Government) and not before any other Government within whose territorial jurisdiction the applicant may have been transferred on conviction or where the offence has occurred. (b) A consideration for remission must be by way of an application under Section 432 of the CrPC which has to be made by the convict or on his behalf. In the first instance whether there is compliance of Section 433A of the CrPC must be noted inasmuch as a person serving a life sentence cannot seek remission unless fourteen years of imprisonment has been completed. (c) The guidelines under Section 432(2) with regard to the opinion to be sought from the Presiding Judge of the Court which had convicted the applicant must be complied with mandatorily. While doing so it is necessary to follow the requirements of the said Section which are highlighted by us, namely i) the opinion must state as to whether the application for remission should be granted or refused and for either of the said opinions, the reasons must be stated- (ii) the reasons must have a bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case- (iii)the opinion must have a nexus to the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists- (iv) the Presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was had or confirmed, must also forward along with the statement of such opinion granting or refusing remission, a certified copy of the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists. (d) The policy of remission applicable would therefore be the Policy of the State which is the appropriate Government and which has the jurisdiction to consider that application. The policy of remission applicable at the time of the conviction could apply and only if for any reason, the said policy cannot be made applicable a more benevolent policy, if in vogue, could apply. (e) While considering an application for remission, there cannot be any abuse of discretion. In this regard, it is necessary to bear in mind the following aspects as mentioned in Laxman Naskar, namely, - (i) Whether the offence is an individual act of crime without affecting the society at large? (ii) Whether there is any chance of future recurrence of committing crime? (iii) Whether the convict has lost his potentiality in committing crime? (iv) Whether there is any fruitful purpose of confining this convict any more? (v) Socio-economic condition of the convict’s family. (f) There has also to be consultation in accordance with Section 435 of the CrPC wherever the same is necessitated. (g) The Jail Advisory Committee which has to consider the application for remission may not have the District Judge as a Member inasmuch as the District Judge, being a Judicial Officer may coincidently be the very judge who may have to render an opinion independently in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 432 of the CrPC. (h) Reasons for grant or refusal of remission should be clearly delineated in the order by passing a speaking order. (i) When an application for remission is granted under the provisions of the Constitution, the following among other tests may apply to consider its legality by way of judicial review of the same. (i) that the order has been passed without application of mind- (ii) that the order is mala fide- (iii)that the order has been passed on extraneous or wholly irrelevant considerations- (iv) that relevant materials have been kept out of consideration- (v) that the order suffers from arbitrariness.

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 32- The right to file a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is also a Fundamental Right. The object and purpose of Article 32 of the Constitution which is also recognised to be the “soul of the Constitution” and which is a Fundamental Right in itself is for the enforcement of other Fundamental Rights in Part-III of the Constitution - The aforesaid constitutional remedy is also to enforce the goals enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution, which speak of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. (Para 22.2)

Constitution of India, 1950- Article 32- Question regarding maintainability of a PIL challenging orders of remission is kept open to be considered in any other appropriate case. (Para 27)

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 432 -435 -Remission : Scope & Ambit discussed (Para 29-32)

Fraud - Fraud vitiates everything - fraud avoids all judicial acts - any litigant who is guilty of inhibition before the Court should not bear the fruit and benefit of the court’s orders. This Court has also held that fraud is an act of deliberation with a desire to secure something which is otherwise not due. Fraud is practiced with an intention to secure undue advantage. Thus, an act of fraud on courts must be viewed seriously. - fraud can be established when a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii), recklessly, being careless about whether it be true or false. While suppression of a material document would amount to a fraud on the Court, suppression of material facts vital to the decision to be rendered by a court of law is equally serious. Thus, once it is held that there was a fraud in judicial proceedings all advantages gained as a result of it have to be withdrawn. In such an eventuality, doctrine of res judicata or doctrine of binding precedent would not be attracted since an order obtained by fraud is non est in the eye of law. (Para 43)
Doctrines of per incurium and sub silentio -Although it is the ratio decidendi which is a precedent and not the final order in the judgment, however, there are certain exceptions to the rule of precedents which are expressed by the doctrines of per incurium and sub silentio. Incuria legally means carelessness and per incurium may be equated with per ignorantium. If a judgment is rendered in ignorantium of a statute or a binding authority, it becomes a decision per incurium. Thus, a decision rendered by ignorance of a previous binding decision of its own or of a court of coordinate or higher jurisdiction or in ignorance of the terms of a statute or of a rule having the force of law is per incurium. Such a per incurium decision would not have a precedential value. If a decision has been rendered per in curium, it cannot be said that it lays down good law, even if it has not been expressly overruled - a decision per incurium is not binding - A decision is passed sub-silentio when the particular point of law in a decision is not perceived by the court or not present to its mind or is not consciously determined by the court and it does not form part of the ratio decidendi it is not binding. (Para 44)

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 -The most important constitutional value is personal liberty which is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of our Constitution. It is in fact an inalienable right of man and which can be deprived of or taken away only in accordance with law. That is the quintessence of Article 21. (Para 58)

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - An order of a High Court cannot be set aside in a proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution - Referred to Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1. (Para 39,44)

Rule of Law - Rule of law means wherever and whenever the State fails to perform its duties, the Court would step in to ensure that the rule of law prevails over the abuse of the process of law. Such abuse may result from, inter alia, inaction or even arbitrary action of protecting the true offenders or failure by different authorities in discharging statutory or other obligations in consonance with the procedural and penal statutes. Breach of the rule of law, amounts to negation of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution - Rule of law means, no one, howsoever high or low, is above the law- it is the basic rule of governance and democratic polity. It is only through the courts that rule of law unfolds its contours and establishes its concept. The concept of rule of law is closely intertwined with adjudication by courts of law and also with the consequences of decisions taken by courts. Therefore, the judiciary has to carry out its obligations effectively and true to the spirit with which it is sacredly entrusted the task and always in favour of rule of law. There can be no rule of law if there is no equality before the law- and rule of law and equality before the law. (Para 61-66)

Justice - Courts have to be mindful of not only the spelling of the word “justice” but also the content of the concept. Courts have to dispense justice and not justice being dispensed with. In fact, the strength and authority of courts in India are because they are involved in dispensing justice. It should be their life aim. (Para 67)
 
Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 20 – S 372 CrPC – Appeal Against Conviction

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 372, 386 - The appellate court should be slow in interfering with the conviction recorded by the courts below but where the evidence on record indicates the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that a plausible view, different from the one expressed by the courts below can be taken, the appellate court should not shy away in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused persons.

Pradeep Kumar vs State Of Haryana 2024 INSC 21 :: [2024] 1 S.C.R. 306 – Circumstantial Evidence – Murder Accused Acquitted

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - While the principle applicable to circumstantial evidence requires that the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, in the present case the evidence adduced gives rise to doubts, improbabilities and inconsistencies - Referred to Pritinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2023) 7 SCC 727.
Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab 2024 INSC 19 – Criminal Trial – Ss 161, 313 CrPC – Illiterate Witness – Circumstantial Evidence

Criminal Trial - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 161 - If the PWs had failed to mention in their statements u/s 161 CrPC about the involvement of an accused, their subsequent statement before court during trial regarding involvement of that particular accused cannot be relied upon. Prosecution cannot seek to prove a fact during trial through a witness which such witness had not stated to police during investigation. The evidence of that witness regarding the said improved fact is of no significance. [Referred to : (i) Rohtash Vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 589 (ii) Sunil Kumar Shambhu Dayal Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011 (72) ACC 699 (SC). (iii) Rudrappa Ramappa Jainpur Vs. State of Karnataka, (2004) 7 SCC 422 (iv) Vimal Suresh Kamble Vs. Chaluverapinake, (2003) 3 SCC 175] (Para 26)

Criminal Trial - Illiterate witness - Appreciation of evidence led by such a witness has to be treated differently from other kinds of witnesses. It cannot be subjected to a hyper-technical inquiry and much emphasis ought not to be given to imprecise details that may have been brought out in the evidence - The evidence of a rustic/illiterate witness must not be disregarded if there were to be certain minor contradictions or inconsistencies in the deposition. (Para 27)

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence -The normal approach in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established- that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused- that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion, that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. [See Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 ] - failure to prove a single circumstance cogently can cause a snap in the chain of circumstances. There cannot be a gap in the chain of circumstances. When the conviction is to be based on circumstantial evidence solely, then there should not be any snap in the chain of circumstances. If there is a snap in the chain, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. If some of the circumstances in the chain can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis, then also the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. [See: Bhimsingh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 4 SCC 281.] (Para 9,37)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313- Standard of proof to be met by an accused in support of the defence taken by him under Section 313 of Code 21 of Criminal Procedure is not beyond all reasonable doubt, as such, a burden lies on the prosecution to prove the charge. The accused has merely to create a doubt and it is for the prosecution then to establish beyond reasonable doubt that no benefit can flow from the same to the accused. [See: Pramila vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 711] - The statement of an accused under Section 313 CrPC is no ‘evidence’ because, firstly, it is not on oath and, secondly, the other party i.e. the prosecution does not get an opportunity to cross examine the accused. [ Sidhartha Vashisht Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2010 SC 2352] (Para 31-32)

Death caused by poisoning through aluminum phosphide - Review of scholarly literature and research papers suggests that the nature of this substance (aluminum phosphide) is such that it is not conducive for deceitful administration since it carries a pungent garlic-like odour, which cannot go unmissed - Referred to Jaipal V. State of Haryana – (2003) 1 SCC 169. (Para 30)

 
Ajeet Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 INSC 5 – S 375 IPC – S 482 CrPC – Rape By Giving False Promise To Marry

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 375 - The allegation in the FIR is that the appellant maintained a physical relationship with the victim by giving her a false promise of marriage - The relationship between the appellant and the victim was a consensual relationship which culminated in the marriage. In the legal notice issued on behalf of the appellant, the factum of marriage was admitted. Therefore, on the face of it, the allegation that the physical relationship was maintained due to false promise given by the appellant to marry, is without basis as their relationship led to the solemnization of marriage. Therefore, this is a case where the allegations made in the FIR were such that on the basis of the statements, no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellant. Therefore, clause (5) of the decision of this Court in the case of the State of Haryana. (Para 9)