Topic Details
Topics Headnote Judgement
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Criminal Jurisprudence — CrPC — S 161— Statement under — Hostile witness — not confronting the witness to his alleged statements made to the police u/s 161 — not marking as exhibits — non explanation by I.O —placing reliance on such statement u/s 161 to record conviction is erroneous in law. (Para 35) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Evidence Act — Ss 24 to 30 — CrPC — S 164 — Confession or admission — Evidentiary value of — is evidence against the maker of it so long as its admissibility is not excluded by some provision of law — Bheru Singh S/o Kalyan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan. (Para 4.2) (Para 4.2) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 CrPC — S 164 — statement or confession under — Standard of proof —the statement or confession may be recorded by a Magistrate, subject to the safeguards imposed by the section itself — can be relied upon at the trial— Bheru Singh S/o Kalyan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan. (Para 4.2) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 CrPC — S 439— Bail — IPC — Ss 121A, 124A, 115, 120-B & 201 — FIRs under — Number of persons — were circulating the messages amongst their community— Held, prima facie, the applicant alone cannot be held liable for miscreants of the other persons — Conduct of Police — innocent persons have suffered injuries — Provocative language — Used by applicant— allegation of — Held, required to be scrutinized at the end of the trial— Willingness of the applicant — to remain outside State of Gujarat — Peace prevailing in the entire State — Case qua quashment of the FIR — pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court — Large number of witnesses — no possibilities that the trial would be completed in short time — No material that even if the applicant remains outside the limits of the State of Gujarat, he shall continue the same activities— Ground of parity — Bail granted. (Para 10, 11, 12, 16 & 17) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 CrPC — S 389 — Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant on bail —IPC — S 489-B — Sentence under —Possession of 15 fake currency notes of 1000 rupee denomination — Charge of —Statement recorded by the investigating officer while accused was in custody — Held, cannot be considered as a confession —Sentence suspended —Bail granted. (Para 7) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 CrPC — S 439 — Regular Bail — IPC — Ss 323, 324, 341, 354A, 114, etc. — POCSO ACT — Ss 7 & 8 — Allegations u/s.354(A) have been made after a period of 38 days after lodgement of the FIR — Investigation over — charge- sheet filed — Applicant is behind bar for last 5 months —Bail granted. (Para 6) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Criminal Jurisprudence —CrPC — S 439— Bail Application — Scrutiny of evidence — Stage of Consideration— Duty of the Court — Held, the Courts not to scrutinize the evidence in detail at the stage of considering an application u/s 439. (Para 10) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Criminal Jurisprudence —CrPC — S 439— Bail — Discretion of Court — Exercising of — Duty of the Court — Held, the Court should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course — Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another —referred. (Para 12) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Criminal Jurisprudence —CrPC — S 439— Bail — in serious offences — Stage of granting — Duty of the Court — detailed examination of evidence & elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken — Prima facie conclusion reasons to be given — as to why bail was being granted — particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence — Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind— Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another —referred. (Para 12) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Criminal Jurisprudence —CrPC — S 439— Bail — Granting of — Essential ingredients — Factors to be considered along with other circumstances — (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; —(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; — (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge— Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another —referred. (Para 12) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Criminal Jurisprudence —CrPC — S 439— Bail — Tampering with the witnesses or Threat to the complainant — Possibility of — Held, witnesses are Police personnel or Government Officers — Complainant — Status of — Senior Police Officers — least possibilities of tampering with the witnesses — Bail granted — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact. (Para 13) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 CrPC — S 177 — Ordinary place of inquiry and trial— IPC — Ss 406, 408, 420, 423 & 468 —Cognizance of offences under —taken at the place of residence of the complainant — Process issued — No part of the transaction had taken place within the local limits of the place of cognizance — Held, Simply because the original complainant is residing there, would not ipso facto give rise to put criminal machinery in motion — complaint has no tenability in view of section 177 — non application of mind on the part of the learned Magistrate — order of issuance of process and the filing of complaint lacks specific element and therefore, prima-facie, not maintainable. (Para 13 & 14) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 CrPC — S 204 & 482 — Issue of process — quashing of — IPC — Ss 406, 408, 420, 423 & 468 — Specific accusation, specific allegation, any role about criminality in the complaint — absence of —not open for the learned Magistrate to casually issue summons upon the complaint without application of any mind — Held, the transaction in question is reflecting an element of civil nature — Complaint in question is nothing but filed with a view to harass the petitioner and with a view to pressurizing tactics to extract something which is not legally available— Complainant & issue of process quashed. (Para 10 & 15) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Interpretation of Statute — CrPC — S 177— Ordinary place of inquiry and trial—every offence ordinarily to be inquired into & tried by the Court within whose local limits and jurisdiction the same is committed. (Para 11) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 CrPC — S 181(4) —Definition — Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust — may be inquired into or tried by a Court — within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed — or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person. (Para 11) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Interpretation of Statute — CrPC — Ss 177, 178 & 181 — Consideration of — In a case where a trial can be held in any of the places falling within the purview of the aforementioned provisions — investigation can be conducted by the concerned officer in- charge of the police station which has jurisdiction to investigate in relation thereto — Jurisdiction of Police Station — Naresh Kavarchand Khatri v. State of Gujarat and another —relied. (Para 12) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 CrPC — S 177 & 204— Ordinary place of inquiry and trial— Complaint filed & process issued — not at the ordinary place of inquiry — legality of — Held, the complaint is not maintainable — & every step either of ordering inquiry or issuance of process is without jurisdiction. (Para 13) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 CrPC — S 202 & 204— Inquiry & Issue of process — Detailed report by police —that transaction is commercial in nature and of civil dispute —Petitioner has remained merely a witness in the transaction — Held, when the business transaction pertaining to any commercial liability which is essentially of a civil nature — to put criminal law into motion — an abuse of process of law —Indian Evidence Act. 1872 — Section 3 —Relevant fact. (Para 14) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 CrPC — S 125 — Maintenance — Income of wife — land in question not owned by her— Held, at the most, she may get some labour charges as agricultural laborer— Case of husband that wife is working in Beauty Parlour — no supporting or corroborating evidence to that effect except pleadings and statement by the husband — Husband having reasonable income — he can certainly maintain his wife and son—No reduction in maintenance —Order of lump sum amount for residential accommodation quashed— Awarded total Rs.8,000/- towards maintenance of both applicants from the total income of Rs.15,000/- — Held, it is made clear that this amount includes the provisions for rental accommodation. (Para 4, 5& 8) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 CrPC — S 125 — Order under — Jurisdiction of court — Order for residential accommodation — Held, while passing order u/s 125 the Court does not have jurisdiction to award lump sum amount towards residential accommodation — jurisdiction of the Court is limited for making immediate arrangement for livelihood of the wife and children. (Para 7) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 CrPC — S 125 — Maintenance under — Must be enough for the wife to live with dignity — However, such living should not be luxurious — though she should not be left to live in discomfort. (Para 7) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Criminal Jurisprudence — CrPC — S 482 — Compromise between the parties — Inherent power of the Court — Exercising of —Held, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them — which may improve their future relationship— Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another —relied upon. (Para 15) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Criminal Jurisprudence — Nature of the Statute — CrPC — S 320 & 482 — Power of compounding the offences vis-à-vis Inherent power of the High Court —Nature of —the power u/s 482 is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal Court for compounding the offences u/s 320 — Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation—Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another—relied upon. (Para 16) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 CrPC — S 482 — Compromise between the parties — Inherent power of the Court — Exercising of — has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted viz. : — (i) to secure the ends of justice, — or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court—Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another—relied upon. (Para 16) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 CrPC — S 482 — Compromise between the parties — in non-compoundable offence — Inherent power of the Court — Exercising of —would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed — However, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime — Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity — or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. — cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute—Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another—relied upon. (Para 16) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 CrPC — S 482 — Offences under special statutes — Compromise between the parties— Inherent power of the Court — Exercising of — cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences—Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another—relied upon. (Para 16) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 CrPC — S 482 — Compromise between the parties — in non-compoundable offence — having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour — Inherent power of the Court — Exercising of —Such cases stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, — particularly the offences arising from — commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership — or such like transactions — or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. — or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private — or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute — In this category of cases the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings—Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another—relied upon. (Para 16) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 CrPC — S 482 — Compromise between the parties — in non-compoundable offence — Inherent power of the Court — Exercising of — If because of the compromise — the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak — & continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression & prejudice — & extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case — despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim — the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding—Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another—relied upon. (Para 16) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 CrPC — S 378 — Appeal against acquittal — IPC — S 409 — Misappropriation of the money sent by money orders — Senders of Money Orders—non examination of — non-production of receipts— non-identification of signature of the accused — Panch witness — ignorance regarding the reason as to why his signature was obtained on the panchnama — Serious lacuna on the part of Investigating Officer — Defective Investigation — Held, Prosecution is not absolved of its responsibility and duties to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt— benefit of doubt — Acquittal. (Para 6 & 8) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Criminal Jurisprudence — CrPC — S 482 — Inherent power of the Court — Exercising of — while accepting settlement between the parties — Held, only because FIR/charge-sheet incorporates the provision of Section 307 IPC — would not, by itself, be a ground to reject the settlement between the parties—IPC — S 307. (Para 13 & 14) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Criminal Jurisprudence — CrPC — S 482 — IPC — S 307 — Charge under — Inherent power of the Court — Exercising of —Decisive factors — Nature of injury sustained — the portion of the bodies where the injuries were inflicted — & the nature of weapons used, etc. — Medical report —can generally be the guiding factor — Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another —relied upon. (Para 13) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Criminal Jurisprudence — CrPC — S 482 — IPC — S 307 — Charge under — Compromise between the parties — Denial of — Once the evidence regarding strong possibility of providing the charge u/s 307 is led — & injuries proved — the Court should not accept settlement between the parties — Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another —relied upon. (Para 13) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Criminal Jurisprudence — CrPC — S 482 — IPC — S 307 — Charge under — Compromise between the parties — Acceptance of — Held, if the High Court forms an opinion that provisions of Section 307 IPC were unnecessarily included in the charge-sheet — the Court can accept the plea of compounding of the offence based on settlement between the parties— Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another —relied upon. (Para 13 & 15) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Criminal Jurisprudence — CrPC — S 482 — IPC — S 307 — Offence under — Compounding of— Inherent power of the Court — Exercising of — Strong possibility of conviction — the Court can refuse to accept the settlement— Remote and bleak chances of conviction — it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties — Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another —relied upon. (Para 15) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Criminal Jurisprudence — CrPC — S 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court — exercising of — Held, in the absence of manifest illegality and perversity in the trial court’s findings & reasons — resulting in grave miscarriage of justice — the High Court is not justified in interfering with the order of the trial Court.(Para 26) PDF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Criminal Jurisprudence — CrPC — S 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Appellate Court — Interference by — Held, the appellate court should not interfere with the acquittal order passed by the trial court merely because two views are possible in a given case. (Para 27) PDF