Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Curtailment of 15 days of police custody

by any extraneous circumstances, act of God, an order of Court not being the
handy work of investigating agency would not act as a restriction. (Para
60) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Difference in the power of Police to
register and investigate an FIR under Section 154(1) read with 157 of the Code,
and the Magistrate's direction to register an FIR under Section 156(3) of the
Code. Power of the Magistrate to direct registration of an FIR under Section
156(3) in contrast with post-cognizance stage power under Section 202 of the
Code – Explained. (Para 23 -38) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 396
Also Read - Four Conditions To Invoke Section 27 Of Indian Evidence Act :
Supreme Court Explains
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - High Courts should endeavour to ensure
that all basic essentials (i.e. FIR No., Date, the concerned police station and the
offences allegedly committed etc.) are duly recorded or reflected in the format
of the bail orders. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 206
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Inherent power of the High Court under
the Code to quash the FIR – Explained. (Para 19-22) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 396
Also Read - Supreme Court Asks State To Pay Salaries To Teachers Appointed
Over Sanctioned Posts; Says They Weren't At Fault
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - No accused can be permitted to play with
the investigation and/or the court's process. No accused can be permitted to
frustrate the judicial process by his conduct. It cannot be disputed that the right
of custodial interrogation/ investigation is also a very important right in favour
of the investigating agency to unearth the truth, which the accused has
purposely and successfully tried to frustrate. Therefore, by not permitting the
CBI to have the police custody interrogation for the remainder period of seven
days, it will be giving a premium to an accused who has been successful in
frustrating the judicial process. (Para 8) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 283
Also Read - 'Custody' Under S.27 Evidence Act Doesn't Mean Custody After
Formal Arrest; Includes Any Kind Of Restraint Or Surveillance: Supreme Court
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Powers of the Appellate Court while
dealing with the appeal against an order of acquittal - General principles
discussed. (Para 14) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 338
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Prevention of Money-laundering Act,
2002; Section 46(1), 65, 71 - The provisions of the Cr.P.C. are applicable to all
proceedings under the Act including proceedings before the Special Court,
except to the extent they are specifically excluded. Hence, Section 71 of the
PMLA providing an overriding effect, has to be construed in tune with Section
46(1) and Section 65. (Para 28-29) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 86
Also Read - No Conviction Possible Under S.364A IPC If Prosecution Doesn't
Prove Abduction Was Coupled With Ransom Demand & Life Threat : Supreme
Court
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Principles in respect of the exercise of
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Explained. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 402
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Remand - There seems to be a practice
followed by Courts to remand the accused to custody, the moment they appear
in response to the summoning order. The correctness of such a practice has to
be tested in an appropriate case. (Para 10) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 218
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173(3) read with Section 158
does not permit the Secretary (Home) to order for further investigation or
reinvestigation by another agency - The order passed by the Secretary (Home)
transferring the investigation / ordering further investigation by another agency
and that too, on the basis of the application / complaint submitted by mother of
the accused is unknown to law - In any case, as it is a case of reinvestigation,
the same is not permissible and that too by another agency without the prior
permission of the learned Magistrate even while exercising the powers under
Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. (Para 7.1, 7.3) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 376
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Supreme Court directs Police to not file
closure report in cases where proceedings/FIR have been quashed by the High
Court - In case of quashing of the criminal proceedings/FIRs by the High Court,
there is no question of preparing/filing a closure report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 335
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The decision in CBI v. Anupam J.
Kulkarni (1992) 3 SCC 141, which held that police custody is not permissible
beyond first 15 days of remand, as followed subsequently requires
reconsideration by a reference to a larger Bench. (Para 79) 2023 LiveLaw (SC)
611
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The maximum period of 15 days of
police custody is meant to be applied to the entire period of investigation – 60
or 90 days, as a whole. (Para 62) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The power under the Code to investigate
generally consists of following steps: (a) proceeding to the spot; (b)
ascertainment of facts and circumstances of the case; (c) discovery and arrest of
the suspected offender; (d) collection of evidence relating to commission of
offence, which may consist of examination of various persons, including the
person accused, and reduction of the statement into writing if the officer thinks
fit; (e) the search of places of seizure of things considered necessary for
investigation and to be produced for trial; and (f) formation of opinion as to
whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before the
Magistrate for trial and if so, taking the necessary steps by filing a chargesheet
under Section 173. (Para 12) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Chapter XII - Information to the Police and their Powers to Investigate

Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Chapter XII - The Investigating
Officer is the person tasked with determining a direction, the pace, manner and
method of the investigation. (Para 38 - 43) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 358
Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Chapter XII - Whether the
Investigating Officer had complied with the duties and responsibilities cast upon
him - Held, the Investigating Officer did not examine the owner of the house;
(b) did not enter his movement in the case diary; (c) did not record that he took
the accused for effecting the recovery; (d) was not able to describe clearly the
area from where the recovery was effected; (e) admits both the independent
witnesses, who do not belong to the area from where the recoveries were
effected; (f) does not associate any of the residents of the area for conducting
the search; (g) does not examine any of the residents for carrying out any further
investigation and (h) Most importantly he admits that both the memo of arrest
as also the recovery not to have been prepared by him or bearing his signature
and the same too, have many corrections and overwriting, thus reducing the
correctness and authenticity of this document. Furthermore, he is not clear about
the description of the articles recovered. The Investigating Officer did not meet
the obligations he was under. Numerous infirmities affected the conduct of the
Investigation Officer calling into question, credibly, the investigation conducted
by him or upon his directions. (Para 35) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Chapter XXV - Provisions as to accused persons of Unsound Mind

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Chapter XXV; Sections 328 to 339 -
Though procedural in nature, Chapter XXV becomes substantive when it deals
with an accused person of unsound mind - There is not even a need for an
application under Section 329 of Cr.P.C. in finding out as to whether an accused
would be sound enough to stand a trial, rather it is the mandatory duty of the
Court -The whole idea under the provisions discussed is to facilitate a person of
unsound mind to stand trial, not only because of his reasoning capacity, but also
to treat him as the one who is having a disability. The role of the Court is to find
the remedial measures and do complete justice. (Para 15-16) 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 71

Section 4 - Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other law
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 4 (2) - Co-operative Societies
Act, 1960 (Maharashtra); Section 81(5B) - the police have an independent
power and even duty under the CrPC to investigate into an offence once
information has been drawn to their attention indicating the commission of an
offence. This power is not curtailed by the provisions of the 1960 Act. There is
no express bar and the provisions of Section 81(5B) do not by necessary
implication exclude the investigative role of the police under the CrPC. (Para
27) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 652

Section 41 - When police may arrest without warrant

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 41, 154 - To strike a balance,
distinction is drawn between power of arrest of an accused person under Section
41 and registration of an FIR under Section 154 of the Code. While registration
of an FIR is mandatory, the arrest of the accused on registration of the FIR is
not. FIR is registered on the basis of information without any qualification like
credible, reasonable or true information. Reasonableness or credibility of
information is not a condition precedent for registration of the FIR. However,
for making arrest in terms of Section 41(1)(b) or (g), the legal requirements and
mandate is reflected in the expression 'reasonable complaint' or 'credible
information'. (Para 15) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Section 41A - Notice of appearance before police officer

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 41A - Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 41A of the CrPC, 1973 has got no application
to an arrest made under the PMLA 2002. (Para 35) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611

Section 53A - Examination of person accused of rape by medical practitioner

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 53A - Failure to subject the
accused to medical examination by a medical practitioner - A serious flaw-
Medical examination of an accused assumes great importance in cases where
the victim of rape is dead and the offence is sought to be established only by
circumstantial evidence. (Para 24-29) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744

Section 54A - Identification of person arrested

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 54A - Test Identification Parade -
An accused is under an obligation to stand for identification parade. An accused
cannot resist subjecting himself to the TIP on the ground that he cannot be
forced or coerced for the same. If the coercion is sought to be imposed in
getting from accused evidence which cannot be procured save through positive
volitional act on his part, the constitutional 38 guarantee as enshrined under
Article 20(3) of the Constitution will step in to protect him. However, if that
evidence can be procured without any positive volitional evidentiary act on the
part of the accused, Article 20(3) of the Constitution will have no application.
The accused while subjecting himself to the TIP does not produce any evidence
or perform any evidentiary act - The accused concerned may have a legitimate
ground to resist facing the TIP saying that the witnesses had a chance to see him
either at the police station or in the Court, as the case may be, however, on such
ground alone he cannot refuse to face the TIP. It is always open for the accused
to raise any legal ground available to him relating to the legitimacy of the TIP
or the evidentiary value of the same in the course of the trial. However, the
accused cannot decline or refuse to join the TIP. (Para 35) 2023 LiveLaw (SC)
703
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 54A - This Section is restricted to
identification of persons only. So, this Section has no application where the
question of identification of articles arises. (Para 33) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703

Section 82 - Proclamation for person absconding

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 82 and 438 - Anticipatory bail
can be granted to a proclaimed offender only in an exceptional and rare
case. (Para 16) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 739
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 82, 83 - The High Court by its
impugned order even while granting bail to the accused issued detailed and
elaborate guidelines with respect to the manner of issuing proclamations under
Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. The impugned order has inadvertently or otherwise
entirely overlooked Form 5 and 6 and the important provisions of Sections 83
Cr.P.C. and 174A IPC. Therefore, to the extent, they issue directions to the
State and to all Courts within the territories of Punjab, Haryana and Union
Territory of Chandigarh; are hereby set aside. However, to the extent that the
order grants bail to the accused, is left undisturbed. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 638

Section 100 - Persons in charge of closed place to allow search

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 100 (4) - Plea of unreliability of
the testimony of the independent witness - It is a general provision relating to
search and applies to a closed place, as for example, a residence, office, shop, a
built-up premises etc, where a search is required to be conducted by the
investigation. It is in this context that sub-section (4) of Section 100 Cr.P.C.
provides that to maintain the purity of the process, before undertaking a search,
a couple of independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality where the
place to be searched is located, be joined as witnesses to the search. (Para 24 –
25) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 813

Section 102 - Power of police officer to seize certain property

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 102 - Company's bank account
cannot be frozen for criminal investigation against an unrelated party. 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 412
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 102, 104 - the power under
Section 104 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to impound a passport. The reason is
that the provisions of the PP Act which deal with the specific subject of
impounding passports shall prevail over Section 104 of Cr.P.C. Moreover,
under Section 102 (1) of Cr.P.C., the Police have the power to seize the passport
but there is no power to impound the same. Even if the power of seizure of a
passport is exercised under Section 102, the Police cannot withhold the said
document and the same must be forwarded to the Passport Authority. It is,
thereafter, for the Passport Authority to decide whether the passport needs to be
impounded. (Para 8) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 565

Section 154 - Information in cognizable cases

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 154 - Principles of natural justice
are not applicable at the stage of reporting a criminal offence - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 does not provide for right of hearing before the registration of
an FIR. (Para 30) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 243
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 154 - Delay in registering FIR -
The immediate lodging of an FIR removes suspicion with regard to over
implication of number of persons, particularly when the case involved a fight
between two groups. When the parties are at loggerheads, the immediate
lodging of the FIR provides credence to the prosecution case. (Para 31) 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 186
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 154 - Registration of an FIR -
Mandatory nature of Section 154(1) of the Code – Explained. (Para 14-
18) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 396
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 154 - Registration of FIR is
mandatory under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., if the information discloses
commission of cognizable offence. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 639
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 154 and 157 - there is a
distinction between Section 154 and 157 as the latter provision postulates a
higher requirement than under Section 154 of the Code. Under Section 157(1)
of the Code, a Police officer can foreclose the investigation if it appears to him
that there is no sufficient ground to investigate. The requirement of Section
157(1) for the Police officer to start investigation is that he has “reason to
suspect the commission of an offence”. Therefore, the Police officer is not liable
to launch investigation in every FIR which is mandatorily registered on
receiving information relating to commission of a cognizable offence. When the
Police officer forecloses investigation in terms of clauses (a) and (b) of the
proviso to Section 157(1), he must submit a report to the Magistrate. Here, the
Magistrate can direct the Police to investigate, or if he thinks fit, hold an
inquiry. Where a Police officer, in a given case, proceeds to investigate the
matter, then he files the final report under Section 173 of the Code. The
noticeable feature of the scheme is that the Magistrate is kept in the picture at
all stages of investigation, but he is not authorised to interfere with the actual
investigation or to direct the Police how the investigation should be
conducted. (Para 16) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Section 156 - Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 156(3) - In order to cause
registration of an F.I.R. and consequential investigation based on the same the
petition filed under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., must satisfy the essential
ingredients to attract the alleged offences. In other words, if such allegations in
the petition are vague and are not specific with respect to the alleged offences it
cannot lead to an order for registration of an F.I.R. and investigation on the
accusation of commission of the offences alleged. (Para 10) AIR 2023 SC 688
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 156(3) - Supreme Court quashes
criminal proceedings after noting that the attempt was to give a cloak of
criminal offence to a civil dispute. The Court noted that the application filed
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. were vague and did not attract the essential
ingredients of the offences. Also, the pendency of a civil suit on the issue was
suppressed in the application. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 156(3) - Proposed accused has
right to be heard in revision filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. against dismissal of
petition under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 465

Section 161 - Examination of witnesses by police

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 161 and 162 - Statement given to
police during investigation under Section 161 cannot be read as “evidence”. It
has a limited applicability in a Court of Law as prescribed under Section 162
Cr.P.C. No doubt statement given before police during investigation under
Section 161 are “previous statements” under Section 145 of the Evidence Act
and therefore can be used to cross examine a witness. But this is only for a
limited purpose, to “contradict” such a witness. Even if the defence is successful
in contradicting a witness, it would not always mean that the contradiction in
her two statements would result in totally discrediting this witness. (Para
19) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 941
Section 162 - Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in
evidence
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 162 - There is nothing in Section
162 of the CrPC which prevents a Trial Judge from looking into the papers of
the chargesheet suo motu and himself using the statement of a person examined
by the police recorded therein for the purpose of contradicting such person
when he gives evidence in favour of the State as a prosecution witness. The
Judge may do this or he may make over the recorded statement to the lawyer for
the accused so that he may use it for this purpose - The proviso would prevent
the Court from using statements made by a person to a police officer in the
course of investigation for any other purpose than that mentioned in the proviso
but it does not in any other way affect the power that lies in the Court to look
into documents or put questions to witnesses suo motu. (Para 45-48) 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 744
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 162 - Witnesses to the
panchnamas and the seizures acted as mere attestors to the documents and did
not disclose in their own words as to how these objects were discovered, i.e., at
whose instance and how. Ergo, no lawful validity attaches to these proceedings
recorded by the police in the context of collection of all this evidence. (Para
32) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814

Section 164 - Recording of confessions and statements

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 164 - Non-examination of the
statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. also has no relevance or bearing to the
findings and conclusions arrived at by the courts below. It was for the
Investigating Officer to have got the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C.
recorded. If he did not think it necessary in his wisdom, it cannot have any
bearing on the testimony of PW-1 and the other material evidence led during
trial. (Para 22) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 110

Section 167 - Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four

hours
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. is a bridge
between liberty and investigation performing a fine balancing act. (Para
77) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - Default bail
can be cancelled on merits - there is no absolute bar that once a person is
released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., his bail cannot be
cancelled on merits and his bail can be cancelled on other general grounds like
tampering with the evidence/witnesses; not cooperating with the investigating
agency and/or not cooperating with the concerned Trial Court etc. [Para
11] 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - Grant of
Default Bail - the bail so granted is not on merits - when an accused is released
on default bail they are released on furnishing the bail bond by them on the
failure of the investigating agency to complete the investigation and file the
chargesheet within the stipulated time mentioned therein - the object and
purpose of proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is to impress upon the need for
expeditious investigation within the prescribed time limit and to prevent laxity -
the object is to inculcate a sense of its urgency and on default the Magistrate
shall release the accused if he is ready and does furnish bail - it cannot be said
that order of release on bail under proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is an order
on merits. [Para 8.1] 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - Grant of
Default Bail - deemed to be released under provisions of Chapter XXXIII of
the Cr.P.C., which includes Section 437 and 439 also - deeming fiction under
Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. cannot be interpreted to the length of converting the
order of default bail, which is not on merits as if passed on merits. [Para
8.1] 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; proviso to Section 167(2) - Grant of
Default Bail - the merits brought out in the chargesheet and attending
circumstances are relevant, as the bail was granted due to default of the
investigating officer without Court's adverting to the merits but strong grounds
are necessary to cancel the bail and mere filing of the chargesheet itself is not
sufficient. [Para 9.2, 9.4, 9.7] 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - Grant of
Default Bail - Order granting bail shall be deemed to be under Section 437(1)
or (2) or Section 439(1) of the Cr.P.C. and that order can be cancelled when a
case for cancellation is made out under Section 437(5) or 439(2) Cr.P.C. [Para
9.6, 9.7] 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - In a case
where an accused is released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., and
thereafter on filing of the chargesheet, a strong case is made out and on special
reasons being made out from the chargesheet that the accused has committed a
non-bailable crime and considering the grounds set out in Sections 437(5) and
Section 439(2), his bail can be cancelled on merits and the Courts are not
precluded from considering the application for cancelation of the bail on merits.
However, mere filing of the chargesheet is not enough, but as observed and held
hereinabove, on the basis of the chargesheet, a strong case is to be made out that
the accused has committed non-bailable crime and he deserves to be in
custody. [Para 13] 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - To hold that
default bail cannot be cancelled on merits will be giving premium to lethargic
investigation-In a given case, even if the accused has committed a very serious
offence, may be under the NDPS or even committed murder(s), still however,
he manages through a convenient investigating officer and he manages not to
file the chargesheet within the prescribed time limit mentioned under Section
167(2) Cr.P.C. and got released on default bail, it may lead to giving a premium
to illegality and/or dishonesty- Such an interpretation frustrates the course of
justice. [Para 12] 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167 - Filing incomplete
chargesheet without completing investigation would not extinguish the right of
accused to get default bail. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 352
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167 - Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002; Section 19 – The Court, while remanding any person
arrested by the ED, has a foremost duty to verify and ensure that the arrest is
valid and lawful. In the event the Court fails to discharge this duty in right
earnest and with the proper perspective, the order of remand would fail on that
ground itself. (Para 16) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 844
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167 - Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002; Section 19 - An order of remand has to be challenged
only before a higher forum as provided under the Cr.P.C. when it depicts a due
application of mind both on merit and compliance of Section 167(2) of the
CrPC, 1973 read with Section 19 of the PMLA 2002. (Para 66) 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 611
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167 - The day of remand is to be
included for considering a claim for default bail - the stipulated 60/90 day
remand period under Section 167 CrPC ought to be computed from the date
when a Magistrate authorizes remand - In cases where the chargesheet / final
report is filed on or after the 61st/91st day, the accused in our considered
opinion would be entitled to default bail. In other words, the very moment the
stipulated 60/90 day remand period expires, an indefeasible right to default bail
accrues to the accused - 3 judge bench answers reference. 2023 LiveLaw (SC)
249
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167 - The word “custody” under
Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 shall mean actual custody. (Para 60) 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 611
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167 - The words “such custody”
occurring in Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 would include not only police
custody but also that of other investigating agencies. (Para 85) 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 611
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2) - Accused cannot claim
the benefit of default bail, when he did not challenge the first extension of time
granted for investigation and the second extension was granted in his presence
and when the chargesheet was subsequently filed within the period of
extension. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 297
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2) - Default Bail - If NIA as
well as the State investigating agency they want to seek extension of time for
investigation, they must be careful that such extension is not prayed for at the
last moment - The right to be released on default bail continues to remain
enforceable if the accused has applied for such bail, notwithstanding pendency
of the bail application or subsequent filing of the chargesheet or a report seeking
extension of time by the prosecution before the court. However, where the
accused fails to apply for default bail when the right accrues to him, and
subsequently a chargesheet, or a report seeking extension of time is preferred
before the Magistrate or any other competent court, the right to default bail
would be extinguished. The court would be at liberty to take cognizance of the
case or grant further time for completion of the investigation, as the case may
be, though the accused may still be released on bail under other provisions of
the CrPC. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 377
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2) - Filing of a chargesheet is
sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 167 of the CrPC and that
an accused cannot claim any indefeasible right of being released on statutory /
default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC on the ground that cognizance has
not been taken before the expiry of the statutory time period to file the
chargesheet - Grant of sanction is nowhere contemplated under Section 167 of
the CrPC - Once a final report has been filed, that is the proof of completion of
investigation and if final report is filed within the period of 180 days or 90 days
or 60 days from the initial date of remand of accused concerned, he cannot
claim that a right has accrued to him to be released on bail for want of filing of
sanction order. (Para 44, 63) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 377
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2) - It is true that in the case
of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, reported in (1992) 3
SCC 141, this Court observed that there cannot be any police custody beyond
15 days from the date of arrest. In our opinion, the view taken by this Court in
the case of Anupam J. Kulkarni (supra) requires re-consideration. (Para 7,
7.1) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 283
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2), 193 - National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008; Section 16 - Error on the part of the
investigating agency in filing chargesheet first before the Court of Magistrate
has nothing to do with the right of the accused to seek statutory / default bail
under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The committal proceedings are not
warranted, when it comes to prosecution under the UAPA by the NIA by virtue
of Section 16 of the NIA Act. This is because the Special Court acts as one of
the original jurisdictions. By virtue of Section 16 of the NIA Act, the Court
need not follow the requirements of Section 193 of the CrPC. 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 377
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2), Section 173 - We find no
merit in the principal argument canvassed on behalf of the appellants that a
chargesheet filed without sanction is an incomplete chargesheet which could be
termed as not in consonance with sub section (5) of Section 173 of the CrPC -
Once a final report has been filed with all the documents on which the
prosecution proposes to rely, the investigation shall be deemed to have been
completed - Once a final report has been filed, that is the proof of completion of
investigation and if final report is filed within the period of 180 days or 90 days
or 60 days from the initial date of remand of accused concerned, he cannot
claim that a right has accrued to him to be released on bail for want of filing of
sanction order. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 377

Section 173 - Report of police officer on completion of investigation

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 173, 207 - Direction to publicly
upload chargesheets against the scheme of Cr.P.C. - If all the chargesheets and
relevant documents produced along with the chargesheets are put on the public
domain or on the websites of the State Governments it will be contrary to the
Scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code and it may as such violate the rights of
the accused as well as the victim and/or even the investigating agency. Putting
the FIR on the website cannot be equated with putting the chargesheets along
with the relevant documents on the public domain and on the websites of the
State Governments. (Para 4.5) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 52
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 173 (8) - District Police Chief
cannot order further investigation without permission from magistrate or higher
court - Power to order further investigation rests with either with the concerned
magistrate or with a higher court and not with an investigating agency. 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 402
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 173 (8) - Victim has a
fundamental right of fair investigation and fair trial. Therefore, mere filing of
the chargesheet and framing of the charges cannot be an impediment in ordering
further investigation / re-investigation / de novo investigation, if the facts so
warrant. (Para 12.3) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 136
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 173 and 482 - Quashing of FIR -
High Court has observed that the Investigating Officer will give opportunity to
the accused to explain the material collected against him during the
investigation before submission of the final report - Such approach is very
strange and contrary to law. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 950
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 173(8) - Even after the final
report is laid before the Magistrate and is accepted, it is permissible for the
investigating agency to carry out further investigation in the case. There is no
bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC
after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been
accepted - Prior to carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the
CrPC it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be
reviewed, recalled or quashed - Though the order passed by the Magistrate
accepting a final report under Section 173 is a judicial order, there is no
requirement for recalling, reviewing or quashing the said order for carrying out
further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC - There is nothing in the
CrPC to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused while considering
an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC - Mere
fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in
the way of further investigation if that would help the court in arriving at the
truth and do real and substantial and effective justice. (Para 50, 73, 76- 77) 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 365
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 173(8), 173(2)(i) - Alternatives
before a Magistrate when a “Final Report” is filed - The Magistrate may either:
(1) accept the report and take cognizance of offence and issue process, (2) may
disagree with the report and drop the proceeding or may take cognizance on the
basis of report/material submitted by the investigation officer, (3) may direct
further investigation under Section 156(3) and require police to make a report as
per Section 173(8) of the CrPC. (4) may treat the protest complaint as a
complaint, and proceed under Sections 200 and 202 of the CrPC. 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 365
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 173, 190, 200 - On the receipt of
the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can exercise three
options - Firstly, he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding
further and drop action - Secondly, he may take cognizance of the offence under
Section 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process - Thirdly,
he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of
the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and
his witnesses under Section 200 - Even in a case where the final report of the
police under Section 173 is accepted and the accused persons are discharged,
the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint
or a Protest Petition on the same or similar allegations even after the acceptance
of the final report - Magistrate is not debarred from taking cognizance of a
complaint merely on the ground that earlier he had declined to take cognizance
of the police report - Magistrate while exercising his judicial discretion has to
apply his mind to the contents of the Protest Petition or the complaint as the
case may be. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 730

Section 190 - Cognizance of offences by Magistrates

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 190 - the cognizance is taken of
an offence and not of the offender - As such the phrase “taking cognizance” has
nowhere been defined in the Cr.PC, however has been interpreted by this Court
to mean “become aware of” or “to take notice of judicially. (Para 10) 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 203
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 190, 203 - an order of dismissal
under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code is no bar to the
entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts, but it will be entertained
only in exceptional circumstances, e.g. that the previous order was passed on an
incomplete record or on a misunderstanding of nature of complaint or it was
manifestly absurd. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 203

Section 197 – Prosecution of Judges and public servants

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 197(1) – Discharge of Official
Duties by Public Servants – Previous sanction requirement – Determination of
the existence of a reasonable nexus between an alleged offence by a public
servant and their official duties – Held, a public servant would be considered to
have acted to purported to have acted in the discharge of their official duty at
the time of the commission of an alleged offence if the said government
employee could take cover – rightly or wrongly – under any existing policy, and
as such, would be granted protection under Section 197(1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Appeal allowed. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 485
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 197 - Although a person working
in a Nationalised Bank is a public servant, yet the provisions of Section 197 of
the CrPC would not be attracted at all as Section 197 is attracted only in cases
where the public servant is such who is not removable from his service save by
or with the sanction of the Government. (Para 45) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 614
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 197 - Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988; Section 19 - In the prosecution for the offences exclusively under
the PC Act, 1988, sanction is mandatory qua the public servant. In cases under
the general penal law against the public servant, the necessity (or otherwise) of
sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC depends on the factual aspects. The test
in the latter case is of the “nexus” between the act of commission or omission
and the official duty of the public servant. To commit an offence punishable
under law can never be a part of the official duty of a public servant. It is too
simplistic an approach to adopt and to reject the necessity of sanction under
Section 197 of the CrPC on such reasoning. The “safe and sure test”, is to
ascertain if the omission or neglect to commit the act complained of would have
made the public servant answerable for the charge of dereliction of his official
duty. He may have acted “in excess of his duty”, but if there is a “reasonable
connection” between the impugned act and the performance of the official duty,
the protective umbrella of Section 197 of the CrPC cannot be denied, so long as
the discharge of official duty is not used as a cloak for illicit acts. (Para
49) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 614

Section 200 - Examination of complainant

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 200 - No doubt, summoning of an
accused is a serious matter and therefore the Magistrate before issuing the
summons to the accused is obliged to scrutinize carefully the allegations made
in the complaint with a view to prevent a person named therein as accused from
being called upon to face any frivolous complaint, nonetheless one of the
objects of Section 202 Cr.P.C. is also to enable the Magistrate to prosecute a
person or persons against whom grave allegations are made. Just as it is
necessary to curtail vexatious and frivolous complaints against innocent
persons, it is equally essential to punish the guilty after conducting a fair trial.
(Para 18) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 203

Section 202 - Postponement of issue of process

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 202 - Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881; Section 138 - As far as complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act
are concerned, for the conduct of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code,
evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant shall be permitted to be
taken on affidavit. In suitable cases, the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to
examination of documents without insisting for examination of witnesses. 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 706
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 202(1) - In a case where one of
the accused is a resident of a place outside the jurisdiction of the learned
Magistrate, following the procedure under Section 202(1) is mandatory. (Para
4) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 702
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 202(1), 203 - After taking
recourse to Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C., before dismissing a complaint by
taking recourse to Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has to consider the
statements of the complainant and his witnesses. (Para 5) 2023 LiveLaw (SC)
597
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 202, 204 - While summoning an
accused who resides outside the jurisdiction of court, it is obligatory upon the
Magistrate to inquire into the case himself or direct investigation be made by a
police officer or such other officer for finding out whether or not there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (Para 22) 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 3

Section 204 - Issue of process

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 204 - Summoning order is to be
passed when the complainant discloses the offence, and when there is material
that supports and constitutes essential ingredients of the offence. It should not
be passed lightly or as a matter of course. When the violation of law alleged is
clearly debatable and doubtful, either on account of paucity and lack of clarity
of facts, or on application of law to the facts, the Magistrate must ensure
clarification of the ambiguities. Summoning without appreciation of the legal
provisions and their application to the facts may result in an innocent being
summoned to stand the prosecution/trial. Initiation of prosecution and
summoning of the accused to stand trial, apart from monetary loss, sacrifice of
time, and effort to prepare a defence, also causes humiliation and disrepute in
the society. It results in anxiety of uncertain times. (Para 21) 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 3
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 256 - Where the complainant had
already been examined as a witness in the case, it would not be appropriate for
the Court to pass an order of acquittal merely on non-appearance of the
complainant. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 153

Section 207 - Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other
documents
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 207, 208 - Accused must know
and understand the material against him in the charge sheet. That is the essence
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 19) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 207, 208 - When a copy of the
report and the documents are supplied to the accused under Section 207 and/or
Section 208, an opportunity is available for the accused to contend that he does
not understand the language in which the final report or does not understand the
language in which the final report or the statements or documents are written.
But he must raise this objection at the earliest. In such a case, if the accused is
appearing in person and wants to defend himself without opting for legal aid,
perhaps there may be a requirement of supplying a translated version of the
charge sheet and documents or the relevant part thereof concerning the said
accused to him. It is, however, subject to the accused satisfying the Court that
he is unable to understand the language in which the charge sheet is submitted -
When the accused is represented by an advocate who fully understands the
language of the final report or charge sheet, there will not be any requirement of
furnishing translations to the accused as the advocate can explain the contents of
the charge sheet to the accused. If both the accused and his advocate are not
conversant with the language in which the charge sheet has been filed, then the
question of providing translation may arise. The reason is that the accused must
get a fair opportunity to defend himself. (Para 19) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708

Section 211 - Contents of charge

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 211, 215 - In a given case, even if
the charge is not framed in the language of the Court, the omission to frame the
charge in the language of the Court shall not be material unless it is shown that
the accused was misled and it resulted in failure of justice. (Para 14.a) 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 708
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 211-224, 464 - Trial Courts
ought to be very meticulous when it comes to the framing of charges. In a given
case, any such error or omission may lead to acquittal and/or a long delay in
trial due to an order of remand which can be passed under sub-section (2) of
Section 464 of CrPC. Apart from the duty of the Trial Court, even the public
prosecutor has a duty to be vigilant, and if a proper charge is not framed, it is
his duty to apply to the Court to frame an appropriate charge. (Para 16) 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 314

Section 216 - Court may alter charge

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 216 and 386 - Alteration or
addition of charges - In view of the wide powers conferred by Section 386 of
Cr.P.C., even an Appellate Court can exercise the power under Section 216 of
altering or adding the charge. However, if the Appellate Court intends to do so,
elementary principles of natural justice require the Appellate Court to put the
accused to the notice of the charge proposed to be altered or added when
prejudice is likely to be caused to the accused by alteration or addition of
charges. Unless the accused was put to notice that the Appellate Court intends
to alter or add a charge in a particular manner, his advocate cannot effectively
argue the case. (Para 12) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 870

Section 222 - When offence proved included in offence charged

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 222 (2) - Court can consider
whether the accused has committed any other offence which is a minor offence
in comparison to the offence for which he is tried. (Para 13) 2023 LiveLaw (SC)
510

Section 227 - Discharge

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 227 - The defence of the accused
is not to be looked into at the stage when the accused seeks to be discharged.
The expression “the record of the case” used in Section 227 Cr.P.C. is to be
understood as the documents and articles, if any, produced by the prosecution.
The Code does not give any right to the accused to produce any document at the
stage of framing of the charge. The submission of the accused is to be confined
to the material produced by the investigating agency. (Para 11) 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 874
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 227 and 228 - At the time of
framing of the charge and taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce
any material and call upon the court to examine the same. No provision in the
Code grants any right to the accused to file any material or document at the
stage of framing of charge. The trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the
facts of the case as may be necessary to determine whether a case has been
made out by the prosecution for trial on the basis of charge-sheet material
only. (Para 8) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 874
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 227 and 228 - The primary
consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of existence of
a prima-facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record
need not be gone into. (Para 12) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 874
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 227, 228 and 397 - The
revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court and start appreciating the
evidence by finding out inconsistency in the statement of witnesses and it is not
legally permissible. The High Courts ought to be cognizant of the fact that trial
court was dealing with an application for discharge. (Para 15) 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 874
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 227, 239 - An interlocutory
application seeking discharge in the midst of trial would also not be
maintainable. (Para 15) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 595

Section 228 - Framing of charge

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 228, 240 - If the accused does not
understand the language in which the charge is framed, the Court will have to
explain the charge to him in the language which he understands. (Para 14.b and
14.c.) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708

Section 235 - Judgment of acquittal or conviction

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 235(2) - Appellate court reverses
acquittal of two accused in murder case - However imposes sentences on them
without hearing them on sentence as per Section 235(2) - Supreme Court sets
aside the sentence finding it to be ex-facie illegal as accused were not heard - In
view of sub Section (2) of Section 235 of CrPC, the court is obliged to hear the
accused persons after their conviction on the quantum of sentence before
passing a sentence against them - The principle of according opportunity of
hearing to the convict before sentencing him is equally applicable where the
sentencing is done by the appellate court. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 326

Section 272 - Language of Courts

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 272 - The power under Section
272 is not a power to decide which language shall be used by the investigating
agencies or the police for the purposes of maintaining the record of the
investigation. At the highest, for that purpose, the provisions regarding the law
governing the Official Language of the State may apply subject to the
provisions contained in such enactment. In a given case, while prescribing a
form as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 173, the State Government may
provide that the charge sheet must be filed in the official language of the State.
Therefore, Section 272 deals with only the language of the Courts under
CrPC. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 272, 167, 173 - A charge sheet
filed within the period provided either under Section 167 of CrPC or any other
relevant statute in a language other than the language of the Court or the
language which the accused does not understand, is not illegal and no one can
claim a default bail on that ground - With the availability of various software
and Artificial Intelligence tools for making translations, providing translations
will not be that difficult now. In the cases mentioned aforesaid, the Courts can
always direct the prosecution to provide a translated version of the charge sheet.
(Para 19) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 272, 173, 465 - There is no
specific provision in CrPC which requires the investigating agency/officer to
file it in the language of the Court determined in accordance with Section 272 of
CrPC. Even if such a requirement is read into Section 173, per se, the
proceedings will not be vitiated if the report is not in the language of the Court.
The test of failure of justice will have to be applied in such a case as laid down
in Section 465 of CrPC. (Para 18) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708

Section 277 - Language of record of evidence

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 277 - The evidence of the witness
has to be recorded in the language of the court or in the language of the witness
as may be practicable and then get it translated in the language of the court for
forming part of the record. However, recording of evidence of the witness in the
translated form in English language only, though the witness gives evidence in
the language of the court, or in his/her own vernacular language, is not
permissible - The text and tenor of the evidence and the demeanor of a witness
in the court could be appreciated in the best manner only when the evidence is
recorded in the language of the witness - When a question arises as to what
exactly the witness had stated in his/her evidence, it is the original deposition of
the witness which has to be taken into account and not the translated
memorandum in English prepared by the Presiding Judge - All courts while
recording the evidence of the witnesses, shall duly comply with the provisions
of Section 277 of Cr.PC. (Para 25) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 66

Section 279 - Interpretation of evidence to accused or his pleader

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 279 - Where evidence is recorded
in the language of the Court which is not understood by the accused or his
pleader, there is an obligation on the part of the Court to explain the evidence to
the accused or his lawyer, as the case may be. (Para 14.g) 2023 LiveLaw (SC)
708

Section 306 - Tender of pardon to accomplice

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 306 (4)(a) - Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988; Section 5(2) - When the Special Court chooses to take
cognizance directly under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the
question of Approver being examined as a witness in the Court of the
Magistrate as required by Section 306 (4)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
does not arise. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 485
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 306 and 307 - Section 306(4)
CrPC contemplates that every person accepting a tender of pardon be examined
as a witness both in the Court of the Magistrate taking cognizance and in the
subsequent trial. The requirement of Section 306(4)(a) CrPC is relaxed in cases
falling under Section 307 CrPC, which empowers the Court to which the case is
committed for trial, itself to grant pardon. Where the Special Judge takes
cognizance of offence directly, Section 306 of the Code would get by-passed it
is Section 307 of the Code which would become applicable. 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 485

Section 311 - Power to summon material witness, or examine person present

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 311 - Power to recall witnesses
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. ought to be exercised sparingly and mere hostility by
a witness, per se, would not be a sufficient ground to infer misuse of concession
of bail. (Para 31) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 924
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 311 - Recalling the witnesses for
an effective, fair, and free adjudication of the trial – Apex Court is vested with
vast and ample powers to have such recourse not only under Article 142 of the
Constitution but also under Section 311 Cr.P.C., be it on the request of the
prosecution or suo moto. Such Constitutional or statutory power is not limited
by any barriers like the stage of inquiry, trial, or other proceeding. A person can
be called and examined though not summoned as a witness, or can be recalled,
or reexamined so as to throw light upon the imputations. Section 311 Cr.P.C., of
course, does not intend to fill the lacunae in the prosecution's case and cause
any serious prejudice to the rights of an accused. The exercise of power under
this provision is intended to meet the ends of justice and to gather
overwhelming evidence to scoop out the truth. (Para 28) 2023 LiveLaw (SC)
924
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 311, 367 and 391 - Appellate
Courts can exercise all powers vested in the Trial Court in an attempt to arrive
at a just and fair decision. In the present case, unfortunately the Trial Court as
well as the High Court failed to exercise their powers under the aforesaid
provisions to summon the witnesses of the charge-sheet to prove the police
papers. Despite applications being filed to summon persons who were not
shown as witnesses to the charge-sheet, the Trial Court repeatedly rejected the
said applications in 2006 and again in 2008 on the flimsy grounds that were not
named in the charge-sheet or that the Public Prosecutor had not filed such
application in gross violation of Section 311 CrPC. (Para 112, 113) 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 664
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 311 and 391 - Power of the
court to take additional evidence - Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. consists of two
parts; the first gives power to the court to summon any witness at any stage of
inquiry, trial or other proceedings, whether the person is listed as a witness, or is
in attendance though not summoned as a witness. Secondly, the trial court has
the power to recall and re-examine any person already examined if his evidence
appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. On the other hand, the
discretion under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. should be read as somewhat more
restricted in comparison to Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., as the appellate court is
dealing with an appeal, after the trial court has come to the conclusion with
regard to the guilt or otherwise of the person being prosecuted. The appellate
court can examine the evidence in depth and in detail, yet it does not possess all
the powers of the trial court as it deals with cases wherein the decision has
already been pronounced. (Para 16) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Section 311A – Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen

signatures or handwriting
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 311A – Evidence Act, 1872;
Section 73 - Specimen Signatures and Handwriting Samples - “to be a witness
against himself” - Since specimen signatures and handwriting samples are not
incriminating by themselves as they are to be used for the purpose of
identification of the handwriting on a material with which the investigators are
already acquainted with, compulsorily obtaining such specimens would not
infringe the rule against self-incrimination enshrined in Article 20(3) of the
Constitution of India. (Para 53, 57) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418

Section 313 - Power to examine the accused

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908; Section 313 - Although there is a
requirement by law to disclose the aspects required to adjudicate in a criminal
matter such duty cannot unreasonably and unwarrantedly step over the
fundamental right of privacy. (Para 36) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 932
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908; Section 313 - In such a statement, the
accused may or may not admit involvement or any incriminating circumstance
or may even offer an alternative version of events or interpretation. The accused
may not be put to prejudice by any omission or inadequate questioning. The
right to remain silent or any answer to a question which may be false shall not
be used to his detriment, being the sole reason. (Para 34.5 & 6) 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 932
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908; Section 313 - Such a statement, as not on
oath, does not qualify as a piece of evidence under Section 3 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872; however, the inculpatory aspect as may be borne from the
statement may be used to lend credence to the case of the prosecution. The
circumstances not put to the accused while rendering his statement under the
Section are to be excluded from consideration as no opportunity has been
afforded to him to explain them. (Para 34.9 & 10) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 932
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908; Section 313 - The Court is obligated to
put, in the form of questions, all incriminating circumstances to the accused so
as to give him an opportunity to articulate his defence. The defence so
articulated must be carefully scrutinized and considered. Non-compliance with
the Section may cause prejudice to the accused and may impede the process of
arriving at a fair decision. (Para 34.11 & 12) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 932
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908; Section 313 - The object, evident from
the Section itself, is to enable the accused to themselves explain any
circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. The intent is to establish
a dialogue between the Court and the accused. This process benefits the accused
and aids the Court in arriving at the final verdict. (Para 34.1 & 2) 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 932
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908; Section 313 - The process enshrined is
not a matter of procedural formality but is based on the cardinal principle of
natural justice, i.e., audi alterum partem. The ultimate test when concerned with
the compliance of the Section is to enquire and ensure whether the accused got
the opportunity to say his piece. (Para 34.3 & 4) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 932
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908; Section 313 - This statement cannot form
the sole basis of conviction and is neither a substantive nor a substitute piece of
evidence. It does not discharge but reduces the prosecution's burden of leading
evidence to prove its case. They are to be used to examine the veracity of the
prosecution's case. This statement is to be read as a whole. One part cannot be
read in isolation. (Para 34.7 & 8) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 932
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - It is optional for the
accused to explain the circumstances put to him under section 313, but the
safeguard provided by it and the valuable right that it envisions, if availed of or
exercised, could prove decisive and have an effect on the final outcome, which
would in effect promote utility of the exercise rather than its futility. (Para
16) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Iudicial experience has
shown that more often than not, the time and effort behind such an exercise put
in by the trial court does not achieve the desired result. This is because either
the accused elects to come forward with evasive denials or answers questions
with stereotypes like 'false', 'I don't know', 'incorrect', etc. Many a time, this
does more harm than good to the cause of the accused. For instance, if facts
within the special knowledge of the accused are not satisfactorily explained, that
could be a factor against the accused. Though such factor by itself is not
conclusive of guilt, it becomes relevant while considering the totality of the
circumstances. (Para 16) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Power to examine the
accused - (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; and (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. (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 16) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 434
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 – Power to examine the
accused - While recording the statement under Section 313 of CrPC in cases
involving a large number of prosecution witnesses, the Judicial Officers should
take benefit of Section 313 (5) of CrPC, which will ensure that the chances of
committing errors and omissions are minimized. Section 313(5) CrPC says that
the Court may take help of the Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing
relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit
filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this
section. (Para 21) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 434
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Settled principles
summarized. (Para 15) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - To enable an accused to
explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, all the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence must be put
to him. But where there has been a failure in putting those circumstances to the
accused, the same would not ipso facto vitiate the trial unless it is shown that its
non-compliance has prejudiced the accused. Where there is a delay in raising
the plea, or the plea is raised for the first time in the Apex Court, it could be
assumed that no prejudice had been felt by the accused. (Para 44) 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 815
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Trial courts cautioned
against recording statements in a casual and cursory manner. What holds
importance is not the mere quantity of questions posed to the accused but rather
the content and manner in which they are framed. (Para 31) 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 629
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 (5) - Once a written
statement is filed by the accused under Section 313(5) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 and the Trial Court marks it as exhibit, such statement must be
treated as part of the statement of the accused under Section 313(1) read with
Section 313(4) Cr.P.C. (Para 17) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 168

Section 317 - Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of
accused in certain cases
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 317 (2) - Splitting of the Trial -
When the High Court permitted splitting of the trial, two important aspects were
not noted by the High Court. The first one was that the Magistrate was not
satisfied that the police have made sufficient efforts to procure the presence of
all the accused. The second factor which is more important is the order of
further investigation. Therefore, this was not the stage at which the High Court
could have permitted splitting of the case. (Para 5) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1016

Section 319 - Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of

offence
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 319 - Power under Section 319
ought to be exercised sparingly and would require much stronger evidence than
near probability of the accused person's complicity. The test elucidated by the
Constitution Bench is as under -The test that has to be applied is one which is
more than 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. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 172
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 319 Cr.P.C., which envisages a
discretionary power, empowers the court holding a trial to proceed against any
person not shown or mentioned as an accused if it appears from the evidence
that such person has committed a crime for which he ought to be tried together
with the accused who is facing trial. Such power can be exercised by the court
qua a person who is not named in the FIR, or named in the FIR but not shown
as an accused in the charge-sheet. Therefore, what is essential for exercise of
the power under section 319, Cr. PC is that the evidence on record must show
the involvement of a person in the commission of a crime and that the said
person, who has not been arraigned as an accused, should face trial together
with the accused already arraigned. (Para 9) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 480
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 319 - Supreme Court lays down
procedural guidelines to prevent abuse. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 128
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 319 - The contention that a
summoned person must be given an opportunity of being heard before being
added as an accused to face the trial is clearly not contemplated under Section
319 Cr.P.C - The principle of hearing a person who is summoned cannot be read
into Section 319 Cr.P.C. - The lateral entry of a person summoned in exercise of
power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is only to face the trial along with other
accused. (Para 32-34) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 576
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 319 - The merits of the evidence
has to be appreciated only during the trial, by cross examination of the
witnesses and scrutiny of the Court. This is not to be done at the stage of
Section 319 - Scope and ambit discussed. (Para 4-5) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 573
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 319, 190 - The exercise of power
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not at the initial stage where cognizance is taken of
the offence and the summoning order is passed before committal of the matter
to the Sessions Court. That power exercised under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. is
quite distinct from the power exercised by the Trial Court/Sessions Court under
Section 319 Cr.P.C - Scope of Section 319 CrPC discussed. (Para 22-27) 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 576
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 319, 227 - When power is
exercised the under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon a person to be added as an
accused in the trial to be tried along with other accused, such a person cannot
seek discharge as the court would have exercised the power under Section 319
Cr.P.C. based on a satisfaction derived from the evidence that has emerged
during the evidence recorded in the course of trial and such satisfaction is of a
higher degree than the satisfaction which is derived by the court at the time of
framing of charge. (Para 24) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 576

Section 320 - Compounding of offences

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 320 - Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881; Section 147 - Compounding of offences - The Appellants cannot
be convicted on the basis of the orders passed by the courts below, as the
settlement is nothing but a compounding of the offence-This is a very clear case
of the parties entering into an agreement and compounding the offence to save
themselves from the process of litigation. When such a step has been taken by
the parties, and the law very clearly allows them to do the same, the High Court
then cannot override such compounding and impose its will. (Para 8, 9,
11) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 75

Section 323 - Procedure when, after commencement of inquiry or trial,

Magistrate finds case should be committed.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 323 - High Court directed the
Magistrate to undertake the exercise of committal in pursuant to a decision to be
taken as to whether a charge can be added under Section 307 IPC only after the
conclusion of the entire evidence of prosecution witness - It is not mandatory
for the Magistrate to wait for the completion of the entire evidence of the
prosecution witness, which is inclusive of cross-examination - Section 323
Cr.P.C. gives a discretion to the Court to exercise its power at any stage of the
proceeding before signing judgment - The power under Section 323 Cr.P.C.
may be invoked by the Magistrate at any stage of the proceeding prior to
signing of the Judgment - The said power may be invoked even after the
deposition or the examination-in-chief of a witness. The key requirement for the
invocation of the power under the Section 323 is that the learned Magistrate
concerned must feel that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of
Sessions. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 742

Section 362 - Court not to alter judgment

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 362 - Court not to alter judgment
– Refusal of Bail - Section 362 which prohibits modification of a judgment or
final order, will not be applicable in an order for refusal of bail. An order for
refusal of bail however, inherently carries certain characteristics of an
interlocutory order in that certain variation or alteration in the context in which
a bail plea is dismissed confers on the detained accused right to file a fresh
application for bail on certain changed circumstances. Thus, an order rejecting
prayer for bail does not disempower the Court from considering such plea
afresh if there is any alteration of the circumstances. Conditions of bail could
also be varied if a case is made out for such variation based on that factor.
Prohibition contemplated in Section 362 of the Code would not apply in such
cases. (Para 5) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 945

Section 366 - Sentence of death to be submitted by Court of Session for

confirmation
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 366 - 368 - In a reference for
confirmation of the sentence of death, the High Court is under an obligation to
proceed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 367 and 368 resply of the
CrPC. Under these Sections the High Court must not only see whether the order
passed by the Sessions Court is correct but it is under an obligation to examine
the entire evidence for itself, apart from and independently of the Sessions
Court's appraisal and assessment of that evidence - The Court must examine the
appeal record for itself, arrive at a view whether a further enquiry or taking of
additional evidence is desirable or not, and then come to its own conclusion on
the entire material on record whether conviction of the condemned prisoner is
justified and the sentence of death should be confirmed - In this case, the court
found serious lapses on the part of the defence in not proving major
contradictions in the form of material omissions surfacing from the oral
evidence of the prosecution witnesses - remit the matter back to the High Court
for deciding the death reference. (Para 2, 57-60) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744

Section 378 - Appeal in case of acquittal

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal-
Scope of interference - Unless such a finding is found to be perverse or
illegal/impossible, it is not permissible for the appellate Court to interfere with
the same. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378 - Scope of interference in an
appeal against acquittal is limited - Unless the High Court found that the
appreciation of the evidence is perverse, it could not have interfered with the
finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. (Para 21) 2023 LiveLaw (SC)
46
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378(2) - the judgment of the
Calcutta High Court, which proposed a mechanism for filing of appeals before
the HC against acquittals in CBI cases, should not be treated as a mandate. 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 558
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378(3) - The Supreme Court
upheld a judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court which dismissed an
application filed by the CBI seeking leave to appeal against order passed by the
trial court acquitting three policemen who were charged of murder while
patrolling, on the ground that the circumstances found do not constitute a
complete chain as to indicate that in all human probability it were the accused
persons who committed the crime. (Para 32) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 542
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378, 386 - An appellate court, in
the case of an acquittal, must bear in mind that there is a double presumption in
favour of the accused. When two views are possible, the one favouring the
accused is to be leaned on. (Para 17-18) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 751
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378, 386 - The judgment of
acquittal can be reversed by the Appellate Court only when there is perversity
and not by taking a different view on reappreciation of evidence. If the
conclusion of the Trial Court is plausible one, merely because another view is
possible on reappreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court should not disturb
the findings of acquittal and substitute its own findings to convict the accused.
(Para 24) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 781
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378, 397-401 - In an
appeal/revision, the High court could have set aside the order of acquittal only if
the findings as recorded by the trial Court were perverse or impossible. (Para
7) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 116

Section 385 - Procedure for hearing appeals not dismissed summarily

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 385 - Procedure for hearing
appeals not dismissed summarily - The language of Section 385 shows that the
Court sitting in appeal governed thereby is required to call for the records of the
case from the concerned Court below. The same is an obligation, power coupled
with a duty, and only after the perusal of such records would an appeal be
decided. (Para 36) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 347
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 385 - Whether, in the absence of
the records of the Court of Trial, the appellate Court could have upheld the
conviction and enhanced the quantum of fine? Held, the Accused, in appeal, has
a right to have the record perused by the Appellate Court and, therefore,
upholding a conviction by merely having noted that the counsel for the accused
not having the record at the time of filing the appeal is “doubtful” and that “no
one can believe” the appeal would have been filed without perusing the record,
as observed by the High Court is not correct. The job of the Court of Appeal is
not to depend on the lower Court's judgment to uphold the conviction but, based
on the record available before it duly called from the Trial Court and the
arguments advanced before it, to come to a conclusion thereon. (Para 33) 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 347
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 385 and 386 - Criminal revision
petition needs to be considered on merits even in the absence of a party or their
counsel. (Para 6) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 689

Section 389 - Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant

on bail
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 389 - Appellant was convicted by
the Trial Court under Sections 307,323 and 341 IPC - High Court suspended the
sentence, but imposed strict conditions of deposit of fine amount of Rs.
1,00,000/- along with a surety of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two bail bonds of Rs.
50,000/- each - Waiving these conditions, the Supreme Court observed:
Excessive conditions imposed on the appellant, in practical manifestation, acted
as a refusal to the grant of bail - Can the Appellant, for not being able to comply
with the excessive requirements, be detained in custody endlessly? To keep the
Appellant in jail, that too in a case where he normally would have been granted
bail for the alleged offences, is not just a symptom of injustice, but injustice
itself. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 45
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 389 - Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881; Section 148 - When Appellate Court considers the prayer under
Section 389 Cr.P.C. of an accused who has been convicted for offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it can consider whether it is an
exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without
imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount - If
the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the
reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded. When an accused
applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence, he
normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any
condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the
Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not. (Para 7-
10) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 389 - the Appellate Court should
not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. and try
to pick up few lacunas or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution.
Such would not be a correct approach. (Para 33) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 389
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 389 - to suspend the substantive
order of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C., there ought to be something
apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which, the Court can
arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable -
the endeavour on the part of the Court, therefore, should be to see as to whether
the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the Trial Court can be
said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of
acquittal. (Para 33) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 389

Section 391 - Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 391 - Appellate Court may take
further evidence or direct it to be taken - The power to take additional evidence
in an appeal is to be exercised to prevent injustice and failure of justice, and
thus, must be exercised for good and valid reasons necessitating the acceptance
of the prayer. (Para 17) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Section 397 - Calling for records to exercise powers of revision

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 397 - The power and jurisdiction
of Higher Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. which vests the court with the power
to call for and examine records of an inferior court is for the purposes of
satisfying itself as to the legality and regularities of any proceeding or order
made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an
error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in such
proceedings. (Para 13) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 874

Section 406 - Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 406 - This Court has allowed
transfers only in exceptional cases considering the fact that transfers may cast
unnecessary aspersions on the State Judiciary and the prosecution agency. Thus,
over the years, this Court has laid down certain guidelines and situations
wherein such power can be justiciably invoked. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 268
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 406 - Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881; Section 138, 142(1) - Notwithstanding the non obstante clause in
Section 142(1) of the NI Act, the power of this Court to transfer criminal cases
under Section 406 Cr.P.C. remains intact in relation to offences under Section
138 of the NI Act - the contention that the non obstante clause in Section 142(1)
of the Act of 1881 would override Section 406 Cr.P.C. and that it would not be
permissible for this Court to transfer the said complaint cases, in exercise of
power thereunder, cannot be countenanced. (Para 13) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 125
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 406 - That most of the accused
and witnesses are from A state is not a ground to transfer case from B state to A
state. (Para 12) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 284
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 406 - The lack of jurisdiction of a
Court to entertain a complaint can be no ground to order its transfer. A
congenital defect of lack of jurisdiction, assuming that it exists, inures to the
benefit of the accused and hence it need not be cured at the instance of the
accused to his detriment. (Para 11) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 284
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 406 - Transfer of case from one
state to another must be ordered sparingly - followed Umesh Kumar Sharma vs.
State of Uttarakhand, 2020 (11) SCALE 562 - It is also important to bear in
mind that transfer of a criminal case from one State to another implicitly reflect
upon the credibility of not only the State judiciary but also of the prosecution
agency. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 141
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 - Remission - It is not open
to the State to adopt an arbitrary yardstick for picking up cases for premature
release. It must strictly abide by the terms of its policies bearing in mind the
fundamental principle of law that each case for premature release has to be
decided on the basis of the legal position as it stands on the date of the
conviction subject to a more beneficial regime being provided in terms of a
subsequent policy determination. The provisions of the law must be applied
equally to all persons. Moreover, those provisions have to be applied efficiently
and transparently so as to obviate the grievance that the policy is being applied
unevenly to similarly circumstanced persons. An arbitrary method adopted by
the State is liable to grave abuse and is liable to lead to a situation where
persons lacking resources, education and awareness suffer the most. 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 144

Section 426 - Sentence on escaped convict when to take effect

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 426(2)(b) - Insofar as a life
convict is concerned, in law, no part of the sentence remains unexpired. The
remission granted by the Government to a life convict, cannot be taken to mean
that there is some portion of the life sentence that remains unexpired in the same
sense as in the case of other convicts. A life sentence is a sentence for life. What
remains unexpired of such a sentence is known only to God (if you believe) and
to the Government, if there is a policy of remission. Therefore, Section 426(2)
(b) cannot be taken to have included within its fold, the case of a life convict,
since in the case of life convict no portion of the sentence remains unexpired, in
the technical sense. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 647
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 426 and 427 - If an escaped
convict already serving life term is subsequently convicted, subsequent sentence
will run concurrently with previous life sentence. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 647

Section 432 – Power to suspend or remit sentences

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 432 – Remission - In determining
the entitlement of a convict for premature release, the policy of the State
Government on the date of the conviction would have to be the determinative
factor. However, if the policy which was prevalent on the date of the conviction
is subsequently liberalised to provide more beneficial terms, those should also
be borne in mind. (Para 4) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 72

Section 433 - Power to commute sentence.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 433 (2) - Grant of Remission
- Presiding Judge should give adequate reasons while giving opinion under
Section 432 (2) Cr.P.C. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 33

Section 436A - Maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be

detained
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 436A and 439 - Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 45 - Detention or jail before being
pronounced guilty of an offence should not become punishment without trial. If
the trial gets protracted despite assurances of the prosecution, and it is clear that
case will not be decided within a foreseeable time, the prayer for bail may be
meritorious. While the prosecution may pertain to an economic offence, yet it
may not be proper to equate these cases with those punishable with death,
imprisonment for life, ten years or more like offences under the NDPS Act,
murder, cases of rape, dacoity, kidnaping for ransom, mass violence, etc.
Neither is this a case where 100/1000s of depositors have been defrauded. The
allegations have to be established and proven. The right to bail in cases of delay,
coupled with incarceration for a long period, depending on the nature of the
allegations, should be read into Section 439 of the Code and Section 45 of the
PML Act. The reason is that the constitutional mandate is the higher law, and it
is the basic right of the person charged of an offence and not convicted, that he
be ensured and given a speedy trial. When the trial is not proceeding for reasons
not attributable to the accused, the court, unless there are good reasons, may
well be guided to exercise the power to grant bail. This would be truer where
the trial would take years. (Para 28) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 934

Section 437 - When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437 - 439 - The process of
criminal law cannot be utilised for arm-twisting and money recovery,
particularly while opposing the prayer for bail - The question as to whether pre-
arrest bail, or for that matter regular bail, in a given case is to be granted or not
is required to be examined and the discretion is required to be exercised by the
Court with reference to the material on record and the parameters governing bail
considerations. The concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be
declined even if the accused has made payment of the money involved or offers
to make any payment; conversely, in a given case, the concession of pre-arrest
bail or regular bail could be granted irrespective of any payment or any offer of
payment. (Para 10) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 47
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437 - 439, Section 357 - Interim
victim compensation cannot be imposed as a condition for anticipatory bail -
Question of interim victim compensation cannot form part of the bail
jurisprudence - Victim compensation is simultaneous with the final view taken
in respect of the alleged offence, i.e., whether it was so committed or not and,
thus, there is no question of any imposition pre-finality of the matter pre-trial -
In cases of offences against body, compensation to the victim should be
methodology for redemption. Similarly, to prevent unnecessary harassment,
compensation has been provided where meaningless criminal proceedings had
been started. Such a compensation can hardly be determined at the stage of
grant of bail. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 83
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437 - Seeking pre-deposit of bank
guarantee for grant of bail is unsustainable. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 345
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437-439, 389 - Excessive
conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail/suspension of sentence -
Conditions of bail cannot be so onerous that their existence itself tantamounts to
refusal of bail. (Para 9-16) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 45

Section 438 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 438 - Is it necessary to exhaust
remedy available in Sessions Court before approaching High Court?- Whether
the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 438 has discretion not to
entertain such an application on the ground that the applicant must first apply to
the Court of Sessions - SC to consider. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 177
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 438 - Supreme Court sets aside
anticipatory bail granted to an accused in a 'casting couch' rape case - The
nature and gravity of the alleged offence has been disregarded by the HC - So
has the financial stature, position and standing of the accused vis-à-vis the
appellant/prosecutrix been ignored. (Para 22) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 205
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Addition of a serious
offence can be a circumstance where a Court can direct that the accused be
arrested and committed to custody even though an order of bail was earlier
granted in his favour in respect of the offences with which he was charged when
his application for bail was considered and a favourable order was passed. The
recourse available to an accused in a situation where after grant of bail, further
cognizable and non-bailable offences are added to the FIR, is for him to
surrender and apply afresh for bail in respect of the newly added offences. The
investigating agency is also entitled to move the Court for seeking the custody
of the accused by invoking the provisions of 437(5)3 and 439(2)34 Cr.P.C.,
falling under Chapter XXXII of the Statute that deals with provisions relating to
bails and bonds. (Para 20) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 205
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - Self-
Contradictory orders passed by the High Court - On the one hand, the
application for anticipatory bail is rejected and, on the other hand, the interim
protection is granted for a period of two months - Appeal allowed and interim
protection direction set aside. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 566
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - The
relief of Anticipatory Bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it
serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects
innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining
a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The
tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding
individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and
presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of
the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation.
The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances
of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome. (Para
19) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 514
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail -
Detailed elaboration of evidence has to be avoided at the stage of grant /
rejection of bail / anticipatory bail. We do not appreciate such a lengthy
elaboration of evidence at this stage - In the matters pertaining to liberty of
citizens, the Court should act promptly - An inordinate delay in passing an order
pertaining to liberty of a citizen is not in tune with the constitutional
mandate. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory bail
application for money laundering offence should satisfy rigours of Section 45
PMLA - Observations made by the High Court that the provisions of Section 45
of the Act, 2002 shall not be applicable in connection with an application under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. is just contrary to the decision in the case of Assistant
Director Enforcement Directorate vs Dr VC Mohan and the same is on
misunderstanding of the observations made in the case of Nikesh Tarachand
Shah Vs. Union of India and Anr.; (2018) 11 SCC 1. (Para 5) 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 138
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Central Goods and
Service Tax Act, 2017; Section 69 - Power to Arrest – Anticipatory Bail - If
any person is summoned under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the
purpose of recording of his statement, the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.
cannot be invoked. No First Information Report gets registered before the power
of arrest under Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 is invoked and in such
circumstances, the person summoned cannot invoke Section 438 Cr.P.C. for
anticipatory bail. The only way a person summoned can seek protection against
the pre-trial arrest is to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 16) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 552
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Ordinarily, there is no
justification in adopting such a course that for the purpose of being given the
concession of pre-arrest bail, the person apprehending arrest ought to make
payment. (Para 11) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 47
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - the High Court fell in grave
error in proceeding on the basis of the undertaking of the accused and imposing
payment of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-two lakh) as a condition precedent
for grant of bail. (Para 29) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 496
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - the process of criminal law
cannot be pressed into service for settling a civil dispute. (Para 27) 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 496
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Victim has right to be heard
in bail application of the accused - No doubt, the State was present and was
represented in the said proceedings, but the right of the prosecutrix could not
have been whittled down for this reason alone. In a crime of this nature where
ordinarily, there is no other witness except for the prosecutrix herself, it was all
the more incumbent for the High Court to have lent its ear to the appellant.
(Para 23, 24) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 205
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Willingness of accused to
deposit money as bail condition must be considered only in cases involving
public money; not in private cases. (Para 26) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 496
Code of Criminal Procedure; Section 438 - Dismissal for default / non
prosecution of bail application - Practice adopted by the High Court in passing
orders for dismissal of bail application in default disapproved. 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 64
Section 439 - Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 – Bail - An order granting
bail in a mechanical manner, without recording reasons, would suffer from the
vice of nonapplication of mind, rendering it illegal. (Para 19) 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 560
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 – Bail - The primary
considerations which must be placed at balance while deciding the grant of bail
are: (i) The seriousness of the offence; (ii) The likelihood of the accused fleeing
from justice; (iii) The impact of the release of the accused on the prosecution
witnesses; (iv) Likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence. (Para
18) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 560
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 – Bail - While considering an
application for grant of bail, a prima-facie conclusion must be supported by
reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case
brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the
nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature
of punishment that would follow a conviction vis à vis the offence/s alleged
against an accused. (Para 22) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 560
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail was allowed by the
High Court weighing the fact that the accused has filed a settlement arrived at
with the victim's son that too in respect of an offence under Section 302 IPC.
The State ought to have approached this Court against the order of bail granted
by the High Court but surprisingly, no steps were taken. Accordingly, the
impugned order is quashed and accused was directed to surrender forthwith
before the trial Court. A copy of this order forwarded to the Secretary (Home),
Government of Gujarat for his perusal and appropriate action. (Para 7 –
12) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 728
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - The offence alleged in the
instant case is heinous and would be a onslaught on the dignity of the
womanhood and the age old principle of where women are respected Gods live
there would recede to the background and the guilty not being punished by
process of law or accused persons are allowed to move around freely in the
society or in spite of there being prima facie material being present they are
allowed to move around freely in the society before guilt is proved and are
likely to indulge in either threatening the prosecution witnesses or inducing
them in any manner to jettison the criminal justice system, then the superior
court will have to necessarily step in to undo the damage occasioned due to
erroneous orders being passed by courts below. (Para 17) 2023 LiveLaw (SC)
707
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - though usually the proper
course of action of the High Court ought to have been to confine itself to the
acceptance/rejection of the prayer for bail made by the accused under Section
439 of the Code; however, the High Court, being satisfied that there were, in its
opinion, grave lapses on the part of the police/investigative machinery, which
may have fatal consequences on the justice delivery system, could not have
simply shut its eyes. (Para 13) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 435

Section 464 - Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 464, 465 - While deciding
whether there is a failure of justice occasioned due to error, omission, or
irregularity in the trial, the Court is required to consider the fact whether the
objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the
proceedings. (Para 16) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708

Section 482 - Saving of inherent power of High Court.

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 482 - Criminal proceedings
quashed - the respondent had failed to make specific allegation against the
appellants herein in respect of the aforesaid offences. The factual position thus
would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceedings are
nothing but the aforesaid incident and further that the dispute involved is
essentially of civil nature. The appellants and the respondents have given a
cloak of criminal offence in the issue-coupled with the fact that in respect of the
issue involved, which is of civil nature, the respondent had already approached
the jurisdictional civil court by instituting a civil suit and it is pending, there can
be no doubt with respect to the fact that the attempt on the part of the
respondent is to use the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment against
the appellants. (Para 10, 11) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 482 - Jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised with care and caution and sparingly. To wit,
exercise of the said power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in
cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of process of
law. (Para 3) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 – Accused not filing petition
to quash FIR / chargesheet has no relevance in deciding bail application. (Para
25 - 28) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 554
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Appeal against High Court
order that quashed criminal proceedings observing that that the complaint
lodged against the husband demand of dowry is inherently improbable and that
it falls in the category of a bogus prosecution - Allowed - Merely because the
wife was suffering from the disease AIDS and/or divorce petition was pending,
it cannot be said that the allegations of demand of dowry were highly/inherently
improbable - Once the charge sheet was filed after the investigation having been
found prima facie case, it cannot be said that the prosecution was bogus. 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 26
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - As per the settled position
of law, it is the right conferred upon the Investigating Agency to conduct the
investigation and reasonable time should be given to the Investigating Agency
to conduct the investigation unless it is found that the allegations in the FIR do
not disclose any cognizable offence at all or the complaint is barred by any
law. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 25
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - At the stage of deciding an
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not permissible for the High Court
to go into the correctness or otherwise of the material placed by the prosecution
in the chargesheet - The Court would exercise its power to quash the
proceedings only if it finds that taking the case at its face value, no case is made
out at all - The factors which the Court is required to take into consideration,
while quashing the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC and while considering
an application for discharge are totally different - Whether the testimony of the
witnesses is trustworthy or not has to be found out from the examination-in-
chief and the crossexamination of the witnesses when they stand in the box at
the stage of such trial - Such an exercise, in our considered view, is not
permissible while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Para 3-
9) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Cheque complaint against
partner of a firm - Powers under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised by
the High Court in case when it comes across unimpeachable and
incontrovertible evidence to indicate that the partner of the firm did not have
any concern with the issuance of cheques. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 695
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Constitution of India,
1950; Article 142 - In cases of offences relating to matrimonial disputes, if the
Court is satisfied that the parties have genuinely settled the disputes amicably,
then for the purpose of securing ends of justice, criminal proceedings inter-se
parties can be quashed. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Delay in the registration of
the FIR, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing of the FIR. However, delay
with other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case
rendering the entire case put up by the prosecution inherently improbable, may
at times become a good ground to quash the FIR and consequential
proceedings. (Para 33) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 – High Court can act on
Section 482 petition to quash FIR even if chargesheet has been filed during its
pendency. (Para 11) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - High Court cannot quash
criminal proceedings at section 482 Cr.P.C. stage by saying charges aren't
proved - High Court cannot conduct a "mini trial" while exercising powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising
the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction
and is required to consider “whether any sufficient material is available to
proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried
or not.” - Whether the criminal proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not
required to be considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered at
the conclusion of the trial - What is required to be considered is a prima facie
case and the material collected during the course of the investigation, which
warranted the accused to be tried. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 292
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - If the question as to
whether the debt or liability being barred by limitation was an issue to be
considered in such proceedings, the same is to be decided based on the evidence
to be adduced by the parties since the question of limitation is a mixed question
of law and fact. It is only in cases wherein an amount which is out and out non-
recoverable, towards which a cheque is issued, dishonoured and for recovery of
which a criminal action is initiated, the question of threshold jurisdiction will
arise. In such cases, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC
will be justified in interfering but not otherwise. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 752
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - In a case where the offence
of defamation is claimed by the accused to have not been committed based on
any of the Exceptions and a prayer for quashing is made, law seems to be well
settled that the High Courts can go no further and enlarge the scope of inquiry if
the accused seeks to rely on materials which were not there before the
Magistrate. This is based on the simple proposition that what the Magistrate
could not do, the High Courts may not do. However, this does not undermine
the High Courts' powers under section 482, Cr. PC and that its inherent power is
always available to render real and substantial justice. The High Courts on
recording due satisfaction are empowered to interfere if on a reading of the
complaint, the substance of statements on oath of the complainant and the
witness, if any, and documentary evidence as produced, no offence is made out
and that proceedings, if allowed to continue, would amount to an abuse of the
legal process. This too, would be impermissible, if the justice of a given case
does not overwhelmingly so demand. (Para 46) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 860
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - It is no part of the business
of any of the courts to ascertain what the outcome of the trial could be, ~
conviction or acquittal of the accused. The small window that the law, through
judicial precedents, provides is to look at the allegations in the FIR and the
materials collected in course of investigation, without a rebuttal thereof by the
accused, and to form an opinion upon consideration thereof that an offence is
indeed not disclosed from it. Unless the prosecution is shown to be illegitimate
so as to result in an abuse of the process of law, it would not be proper to scuttle
it. (Para 17) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 494
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Penal Code, 1860; Section
420 - A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for
cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning
of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will
not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings - The criminal Courts are not
meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil
disputes. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 157
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - the
complainant had named the appellant and alleged complicity based on a
misconception and therefore, at this stage, having realized the same, has
indicated that he does not wish to prosecute the complaint as against the
appellant. Therefore, the FIR as against the appellant, would not be appropriate
and all further action unnecessary. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 620
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Sections 3(1)(v) and
(va) - Private civil dispute between the parties is converted into criminal
proceedings - Initiation of the criminal proceedings therefore, is nothing but an
abuse of process of law and Court - Complaint and summoning order
quashed. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 14
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Supreme Court criticises
Kerala HC for overstepping jurisdiction to pass general orders - High Court in
its overzealous approach" exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by
enlarging the scope of the petition and crossed all the boundaries of judicial
activism and judicial restraint by passing such orders under the guise of doing
real and substantial justice. (Para 28) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 203
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Supreme Court opines that
it is desirable that High Courts refrain from quashing cases under the Prevention
of Corruption Act even if it suspected that the case is registered by a new
government against officers who supported the previous government-it would
be eminently desirable if the high courts maintain a hands-off approach and not
quash a first information report pertaining to “corruption” cases, specially at the
stage of investigation, even though certain elements of strong-arm tactics of the
ruling dispensation might be discernible. (Para 74) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 158
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - The protection against
vexatious and unwanted prosecution and from being unnecessarily dragged
through a trial by melting a criminal proceeding into oblivion, either through
quashing a FIR/Complaint or by allowing an appeal against an order rejecting
discharge or by any other legally permissible route, as the circumstances may
be, in the deserving case, is a duty cast on the High Courts. (Para 23) 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 1019
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Though it is clear that there
can be no blanket rule that a second petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would
not lie in any situation and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of
the individual case, it is not open to a person aggrieved to raise one plea after
the other, by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C., though all such pleas were very much available even at the first
instance. Permitting the filing of successive petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
ignoring this principle would enable an ingenious accused to effectively stall the
proceedings against him to suit his own interest and convenience, by filing one
petition after another under Section 482 Cr.P.C., irrespective of when the cause
therefor arose. Such abuse of process cannot be permitted. (Para 11) 2023
LiveLaw (SC) 935
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Trend of projecting a purely
civil financial dispute as a criminal matter with a view to intimidate and in
abuse of the criminal process - In “Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.”,
(2015) 6 SCC 287, this Court had noticed that taking recourse to criminal law
by bypassing statutory remedies to bring the financial institutions on their
knees, has the inherent potentiality to affect the marrows of economic health of
the nation. Further, in “Vijay Kumar Ghai & Anr. Vs. State of W.B. & Ors.”
(2022) 7 SCC 124, this Court quashed the criminal proceedings being abuse of
law in a purely civil financial dispute and being a case of forum shopping.
Despite these judgments, continuation of such a trend appears extremely
disturbing. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 500
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Unexplained inordinate
delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor and ground for
quashing a criminal complaint. (Para 16) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 446
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - When it comes to quashing
of the FIR or criminal proceedings, the criminal antecedents of the accused
cannot be the sole consideration to decline to quash the criminal proceedings.
An accused has a legitimate right to say before the Court that howsoever bad his
antecedents may be, still if the FIR fails to disclose commission of any offence
or his case falls within one of the parameters as laid down by this Court in the
case of Bhajan Lal, then the Court should not decline to quash the criminal case
only on the ground that the accused is a history sheeter. Initiation of prosecution
has adverse and harsh consequences for the persons named as accused - The
right to not to be disturbed without sufficient grounds as one of the underlying
mandates of Article 21 of the Constitution - The requirement and need to
balance the law enforcement power and protection of citizens from injustice and
harassment must be maintained. It goes without saying that the State owes a
duty to ensure that no crime goes unpunished but at the same time it also owes a
duty to ensure that none of its subjects are unnecessarily harassed. (Para
34) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Whenever an accused
comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings
quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly
frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the
FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant
decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking
personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very
well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure
that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the
necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be
just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint
alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious
proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in
between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482
of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the
stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances
leading to the 2 initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials
collected in the course of investigation. (Para 30) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Whenever an accused
comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings
quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly
frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the
FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant
decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking
personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very
well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure
that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the
necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be
just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint
alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious
proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in
between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482
of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the
stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances
leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected
in the course of investigation. (Para 26) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Whenever an accused
comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get
the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such
proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a
duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because
once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior
motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the
FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The
complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are
such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the
averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed
or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into
many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over
and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try
to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict
itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the
overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as
the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case
on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the
background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes
importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or
personal grudge as alleged. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 613
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Where purely civil disputes,
more often than not, relating to land and/or money are given the colour of
criminality, only for the purposes of exerting extra-judicial pressure on the party
concerned, which, we reiterate, is nothing but abuse of the process of the court.
(Para 36) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 421
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - While exercising power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court was legally bound to see if
allegations / accusations constitute any offence or not. (Para 7) 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 1072
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482, 397 - The principles to be
borne in mind with regard to quashing of a charge / proceedings either in
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. or Section 482 Cr. P.C. or
together. (Para 17) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 494