Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Proof of Demand – Demand not Established – The appellant, a Talati cum Mantri, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding ₹500 as illegal gratification for providing a copy of a mutation entry – The prosecution failed to prove the specific demand for gratification beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict without proof of demand – The trial court erred in convicting the appellant without sufficient proof of demand or acceptance [Paras 9-10].

Defence of Appellant – Illegal Tax Demand – The appellant contended that the ₹500 was not a bribe but a tax owed by the complainant for the encroachment of a shop, as evidenced by the tax records and resolutions of the Gram Panchayat – The prosecution failed to disprove this defence, and the trial court did not properly consider this plausible explanation – Held: The appellant’s defence that the amount was legitimate tax dues, and not illegal gratification, was plausible and ought to have been considered [Para 10.1].

Prosecution Failure – Lack of Evidence of Prior Demand – The prosecution's case was primarily based on the complainant’s testimony, but no independent witness or documentary evidence supported the claim of prior demand – The complainant's son, who allegedly witnessed the demand, was not examined – Further, no phone call records were produced despite claims that the demand was made via telephone – Held: Prosecution failed to establish prior demand or demand at the time of the trap beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Bail bond canceled – Fine to be refunded [Paras 12-14].
 

Criminal Law - Acquittal - Conviction under Sections 323 and 436 IPC - Sufficiency of Evidence – The appellants were convicted for voluntarily causing hurt and committing mischief by fire – The prosecution case was that the appellants demanded money from the complainant and, upon refusal, assaulted him and set his house on fire – Held: The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt – The key prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and his wife, were not supported by independent witnesses, and there were inconsistencies in the evidence – The benefit of doubt was extended to the appellants, leading to their acquittal [Paras 12-20].

Role of Independent Witnesses – Credibility of Evidence – The court emphasized the lack of support from independent witnesses for the prosecution’s version – Testimonies from neighbors indicated a dispute over money between the complainant and the appellants – The court noted that the prosecution's case rested on unreliable evidence, and the failure to seize key items such as the stick and kerosene can further weakened the case [Paras 15-18].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – The medical examination of the complainant and the village Kotwar showed no external injuries, casting further doubt on the prosecution’s claim of assault – The complainant’s wife had minor scratch marks, which could have been caused by broken bangles – Held: The absence of injuries and the lack of seizure of weapons indicated the prosecution’s failure to establish the occurrence of the alleged assault [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Acquittal on Benefit of Doubt – The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt – Given the inconsistencies and lack of credible evidence, the benefit of doubt was extended to the appellants – The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges against them [Paras 20-22].

Criminal Law – Bail under PMLA – Offence under Foreign Law as Scheduled Offence – Petitioners accused of offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 – Proceedings initiated after receipt of a Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request from the U.S. Department of Justice, alleging that accused Vishal Moral committed wire fraud and money laundering – ED registered a case under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA – Petitioners sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 45 of PMLA – Held: Foreign laws, if corresponding to scheduled offences under PMLA, can be treated as predicate offences with cross-border implications, but foreign law must be proved as a matter of fact [Paras 1, 3-5, 48-58, 85].

Predicate Offence – Need for Proof of Corresponding Law – ED argued that U.S. statutes under which Vishal Moral is accused correspond to Indian laws under IT Act and IPC – Court observed that foreign laws cannot be taken as judicial notice and must be proved through expert evidence – Absence of prima facie material to establish that the U.S. offences correspond to scheduled offences under PMLA – Benefit of doubt extended to petitioners, as no prima facie case of proceeds of crime being linked to a scheduled offence was established [Paras 80-86].

Incriminating Evidence – Section 50 PMLA Statements and WhatsApp Chats – Statements of Vishal Moral and co-accused under Section 50 PMLA, recorded post-arrest, are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act – WhatsApp/Telegram chats recovered were not conclusive, and no scientific reports were available – Held: These pieces of evidence could not establish a live link between petitioners and the alleged crime at this stage – Retracted statements of co-accused lacked corroboration and thus could not be relied upon [Paras 96-105, 106-112].

Judicial Cognizance and Procedural Issues – Petitioners argued that cognizance was taken without sufficient material, and ED had not disclosed crucial documents such as the MLA request or communications between U.S. and Indian authorities – Court noted that while the cognizance order was not detailed, it did not affect the broad probability analysis for bail – Non-compliance with procedural requirements like sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. was not necessary since the offence of money laundering was committed in India [Paras 89-91, 76-79].

Delay in Trial – Impact on Bail – Petitioners had been in custody for over 16 months, and trial had not commenced due to pending investigations – Court referred to recent Supreme Court judgments affirming that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" and considered the likelihood of delayed trial – Petitioners granted bail, observing that prolonged pre-trial incarceration without likelihood of speedy trial violates their right to liberty under Article 21 [Paras 117-121].

Decision – Bail granted to all petitioners with conditions – Petitioners to furnish personal bonds, report to the investigating officer, and not leave the country without permission – Court emphasized that observations made were only for deciding the bail applications and not on the merits of the case [Paras 122-124].

Preventive Detention – Allegations of Mala Fide Action – The petitioner, a local journalist, was detained under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978, based on a dossier alleging his involvement in repeated criminal acts – The petitioner contended that the detention was mala fide, with the authorities portraying him falsely as a habitual offender by selectively referring to FIRs against him, some of which had resulted in acquittals – Held: The court found that the detention order was issued without proper application of mind, and the authorities failed to acknowledge the acquittals in several FIRs, indicating a mala fide intent to suppress the petitioner’s rights.

Violation of Fundamental Rights – Right to Personal Liberty – The court emphasized that the right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be deprived without due process – The detaining authority acted in a mechanical manner, accepting the dossier without independently verifying the facts or applying its own mind – This led to a violation of the petitioner's fundamental right to liberty.

Reliance on Outdated and Non-Substantive FIRs – Lack of Immediate Threat to Public Order – The dossier included FIRs dating back to 2001 to 2013 and a recent FIR from 2023, but most did not involve grave charges or an immediate threat to public order – The court held that relying on outdated and minor FIRs to justify preventive detention was an abuse of power – Preventive detention requires a clear and present danger to public order, which was not established in this case.

Judicial Scrutiny of Preventive Detention Orders – The court reiterated the importance of judicial scrutiny in cases of preventive detention, cautioning against the casual use of such powers by the police and executive authorities – It emphasized that preventive detention must be based on concrete evidence of a real threat to public order, and not on vague or generalized allegations.

Decision – Quashing of Detention Order – The court quashed the preventive detention order No. 02/DMP/PSA of 2024 dated 09.03.2024, along with the approval/confirmation orders, as being illegal and a violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights – The Superintendent District Jail Poonch was directed to immediately release the petitioner from custody, restoring his personal liberty.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Offence under Section 307 IPC – Petitioners sought quashing of FIR registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 341, 506, and 307 IPC on the basis of a compromise with the aggrieved parties – FIR related to a fight in which grievous injuries were alleged – Aggrieved persons consented to quashing the FIR and confirmed the genuineness of the compromise before the Magistrate – Held: While Section 307 IPC is a serious and non-compoundable offence, the Court, relying on precedents, quashed the FIR in light of the compromise, noting that continuing the proceedings would not serve the purpose of justice – Petition allowed [Paras 6-7, 25-26].

Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC – Non-compoundable Offences – Quashing based on Compromise – The Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and proceedings, despite the non-compoundable nature of the offence under Section 307 IPC – Judicial precedents indicate that quashing is permissible where a compromise is genuine, and prosecution would be a futile exercise – Court emphasized that the settlement was voluntary, and the parties, belonging to the same community, had reconciled, thereby restoring peace – Held: Continuation of the proceedings would not serve any fruitful purpose [Paras 5, 7, 12, 18-20].

Judicial Precedents – Section 307 IPC – Reference made to Ram Prasad v. State of UP, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and other Supreme Court rulings, which allow quashing of cases under Section 307 IPC in certain circumstances, such as when injuries are not grave and parties have reached a genuine settlement – Held: In the present case, given the lack of serious injuries and the voluntary settlement, quashing is justified [Paras 7, 8, 11].

Decision: FIR and all subsequent proceedings quashed under Section 482 CrPC – Petition allowed – Bail bonds of the petitioners discharged [Para 26].

Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Enhancement of Maintenance – The petitioner, an elderly mother, sought enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court – She argued that the current maintenance of ₹2000/- was insufficient for her needs, including medical expenses – Held: The court found that the petitioner was receiving a family pension and interest from bank deposits totaling approximately ₹13,457/- per month – Considering the maintenance awarded and her total income, the court ruled that the maintenance amount of ₹2000/- was adequate, taking into account the potential liability of her younger son as well – The revision petition was dismissed, and the request for enhancement was not accepted [Paras 12-20].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – The court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to reappreciate evidence unless there is a clear case of perversity or a significant error – Citing Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, the court held that it is not within the court’s power to sit as an appellate body over findings of fact unless they are found to be completely unreasonable or unsupported by evidence [Paras 12-13].

Duty to Maintain Parents – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – The court reiterated that both sons have an equal legal and moral obligation to maintain their mother – The petitioner cannot single out one son for maintenance while disregarding the other's responsibility – This factor was considered in assessing the sufficiency of the maintenance awarded [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petition – Maintenance Held Adequate – The criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed – The court found that the maintenance amount of ₹2000/- awarded by the Family Court was sufficient when considering the petitioner's overall income and the obligation of her other son to contribute – No justifiable ground was found to interfere with the Family Court's order [Paras 20-22].

Ancestral Property and Ownership Claims – Petitioners asserted that the property in dispute, allotted to their grandfather in 1974, was ancestral and a shared household – Contention rejected as petitioners never challenged the mutation of the property in the name of their father Jagdish Prasad in 1992-93 – Held: Petitioners’ claim of shared ownership barred by law of limitation and lacking evidence [Paras 19-21A].

Eviction of Petitioners under Senior Citizens Act – Petitioners sought to challenge the eviction order passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Held: Sub Divisional Officer’s order directing eviction was valid, as it addressed the nuisance caused to the senior citizen (respondent No.3) and complied with Rule 20 of M.P. Senior Citizen Rules, 2009, aimed at protecting life and property of senior citizens – No misuse of Section 23 of the Act as there was no transfer of property to the petitioners [Paras 24-27].

Applicability of Judgments – Petitioners placed reliance on Supreme Court judgments in Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and Smt. S. Vanitha vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District – Court held that neither of these judgments applied to the present case – No transfer of property or rights under the Domestic Violence Act involved – Misapplication of case law by petitioners noted and deprecated [Paras 28-31].

Final Decision – Petition dismissed – Petitioners found to have been prolonging litigation since 2020 without merit – Court imposed costs of Rs.10,000 on the petitioners for misuse of legal process – Compliance with the eviction order to be carried out immediately [Paras 32-33].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Serious Offenses and Settlements – Rape and POCSO Act Offenses - accused was charged with offenses under Sections 6 read with 5(n)(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act and Sections 450, 376(3)(2)(n)(f) of the IPC. The petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings on the grounds that he had married the de facto complainant, and they were now living happily – The court emphasized that serious offenses such as rape and those under the POCSO Act generally cannot be quashed on the basis of a settlement between the offender and the victim due to the public interest involved and the impact on society [Paras 4-8].

Quashing of Proceedings – Humanitarian Consideration in Exceptional Cases - accused initially had a relationship with the de facto complainant that led to the charge of sexual molestation, he later married the complainant, and they were living peacefully. The court found this to be an exceptional situation where quashing was deemed appropriate to ensure the peaceful family life of the parties and avoid subjecting them to the hazards of litigation – Hence, the court deviated from the general principle against quashing in such cases and allowed the quashing of the proceedings [Para 9-11].

Decision: Quashing Allowed - The petition was allowed, and all further proceedings in S.C.No.278/2020 were quashed to avoid disturbing the married life of the petitioner and the de facto complainant [Para 11].
 

Section 295A of IPC – Outrage of Religious Feelings – Shouting ‘Jai Sriram’ in a Mosque – Not Outrageous – The petitioners were accused of entering a mosque and shouting ‘Jai Sriram’ with the intent of disrupting communal harmony. The court held that shouting ‘Jai Sriram’ does not constitute an insult or malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings under Section 295A of the IPC, particularly when there is no disruption of public order or deliberate insult to religious beliefs – Petitioners' actions did not meet the threshold for criminal offense under the said section [Paras 5-6].

Criminal Intimidation under Section 506 of IPC – Ingredients Not Established – The complaint alleged that the petitioners threatened the mosque members. However, the court found that the complaint did not specify any actionable threats or fear of harm that would amount to criminal intimidation under Section 506. The lack of specific allegations led the court to dismiss this charge [Paras 6-7].

Abuse of Process – Quashing of FIR – No Prima Facie Case – The court observed that none of the alleged acts committed by the petitioners met the essential ingredients required for the offenses under Sections 447, 295A, 505, or 506 IPC. Continuing the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. – The petition was allowed, and the FIR and all related proceedings were quashed [Paras 7-8].

Decision:

The writ petition was allowed, and the entire proceedings in Crime No. 86 of 2023 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, were quashed.