Criminal Law – Quashing - Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Sale of Drugs Without Valid License – Petitioner (Accused No.2), a licensed drug distributor, alleged to have supplied allopathic drugs to Accused No.1, a non-registered practitioner running a clinic without drug license – Proceedings initiated under Sections 18(a)(vi) and 27(d) of the Act of 1940 – Court held that such supply violated the license conditions of the petitioner – Held: Offences prima facie made out – Petition dismissed [Paras 3, 7].

Limitation – Section 468 CrPC – Complaint alleged to be barred as maximum punishment for Accused No.2 is two years – Court held that offences against co-accused (Accused No.1) are punishable up to five years – As per Section 468(3) CrPC, limitation is computed with reference to most severe offence in joint trial – Petition not barred by limitation [Paras 4, 8].

Authority of Complainant – Drug Inspector’s Locus Standi – Petitioner contended that complainant was not notified as Inspector for Gadag Circle under Section 21(1) of the Act – Court held: Once duly notified as Inspector for Shivamogga Circle, subsequent transfer covered under Section 21(2) – No fresh Gazette Notification required for each transfer – Narrow interpretation rejected as impractical and contrary to object of Act – Held: Inspector was competent to file complaint [Paras 9-16].

Cognizance and Trial – Role of Magistrate – Petitioner argued Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain complaint under Section 32 – Court held: Sessions Court alone competent to try offences under Chapter IV of the Act – However, cognizance must be taken by Magistrate and committed under Section 193 CrPC – Held: Complaint properly committed to Sessions Court under Section 209 – No illegality [Paras 17-20].

Special Laws and Cognizance – Comparison with SC/ST Act and PC Act – Court contrasted express cognizance provisions under other special statutes – Noted absence of similar provision in Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Reinforced need for committal procedure via Magistrate – Petitioner's argument rejected [Paras 11-15].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Proceedings against petitioner under Sections 18(a)(vi) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 upheld – Complaint held valid in law – Committal to Sessions Court proper – No ground for quashing.

Family Law - Senior Citizens Act – Gift Deed – Cancellation – Section 23(1) – Deemed Condition of Maintenance – Gift deed executed by 88-year-old mother-in-law in favour of daughter-in-law – Tribunal refused to cancel the deed as there was no express condition of maintenance in the document – District Magistrate reversed the decision and directed cancellation – Held: Execution of gift by a senior citizen to a close relative implies expectation of care and maintenance – Failure to provide such care attracts the deeming clause under Section 23 – No requirement of express stipulation in the deed – Tribunal and appellate authority justified in declaring the transfer void [Paras 30–36].

Pleadings – Implied Condition of Maintenance – Gift deed need not contain explicit clause – Condition of care can be inferred from facts, relationship, and contemporaneous conduct – Evidence including letters from the transferor highlighting neglect and abuse sufficient to establish breach of implied condition – Tribunal should consider entire material, not just bare pleadings [Paras 24–29, 31–35].

Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation – Purposeful Construction – Strict literal interpretation of Section 23(1) rejected – Court followed purposive approach to uphold statutory objective of protecting elderly citizens from being deprived of property and dignity – Reference to judgments in Urmila Dixit, Nitin Rajendra Gupta, and Mohamed Dayan affirming broader interpretation favouring senior citizens [Paras 23–29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of Single Judge upheld – District Magistrate’s order restoring senior citizen’s property affirmed – Tribunal empowered to declare transfer void even without express condition in the deed – Costs not imposed.

Criminal Law – Criminal Revision Against Framing of Charge - Criminal Conspiracy – Registrar of Cooperative Societies alleged to have approved fraudulent freeze list of members and expulsion of 48 original members of Naval Technical Officers CGHS – File notings showed serious discrepancies, absence of required affidavits, and false audit reports – Held: Material on record establishes grave suspicion of conspiracy and misuse of official position by petitioner – Framing of charge justified [Paras 54-80]

Forgery and Cheating – Petitioner approved freeze list despite internal file notings indicating incomplete and manipulated documents – Membership strength altered from 73 to 277 without supporting documents – Affidavits missing and audit reports based on falsified bank details – Held: Prima facie case made out for forgery, using forged documents, and cheating – Trial required to ascertain extent of complicity [Paras 66-74]

Registrar's Responsibility – Though approval followed hierarchical notings by subordinate officers, petitioner as Registrar was expected to independently verify authenticity of documents and red-flag irregularities – Argument of mechanical signing rejected – Held: Final approval in face of known irregularities demonstrates culpable neglect and active facilitation [Paras 75-81]

Bar of Sanction – Petitioner claimed protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 95 of the DCS Act for acts done in official capacity – Held: No sanction required under PC Act as petitioner had retired at the time of cognizance – Protection under Section 95 DCS Act available only for acts done in good faith – Whether petitioner acted in good faith is matter for trial – No bar to prosecution at stage of framing charge [Paras 91-98]

Criminal Conspiracy – Proof – Meeting of minds – No direct evidence of conspiracy alleged – Held: Criminal conspiracy rarely established through direct evidence – Circumstantial evidence showing concerted acts between petitioner and co-accused in approving manipulated list sufficient to infer prima facie conspiracy [Paras 86-88]

Decision: Revision Petition dismissed – Framing of charge under IPC and PC Act upheld – Petitioner's plea of lack of sanction and immunity rejected – Trial to proceed on merits – Observations not binding at final stage [Paras 99-101]

Criminal Law – Summoning Order – Quashed – Appeal under Section 14A SC/ST Act – Appellant summoned under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act in a complaint case arising from a failed land transaction – Delay of over six months in lodging complaint – Allegation of rape found not credible and summoning not done for offence under Section 376 – Held: Present prosecution is based on identical facts as prior case and amounts to abuse of process of law – Complaint filed with the intent to pressure refund of earnest money, which is a civil dispute – Summoning order set aside [Paras 16–23].

Abuse of Process – Duplicate Proceedings – Two FIRs on Similar Facts – Earlier prosecution already pending under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act – Both complaints arise from the same transaction and contain nearly identical averments – Second complaint includes new rape allegation not found credible by trial court – Held: Repeated criminal proceedings on same cause of action are impermissible and attract constructive res judicata – Entire proceedings quashed [Paras 9–13, 20–23].

SC/ST Act – Intention to Offend on Caste Grounds – Essential Element – Mere abuse or insult not sufficient – Allegation must show intention to commit offence because of the victim’s caste status – Held: No prima facie case under SC/ST Act made out – Caste-related language insufficient absent clear intent [Paras 6, 10, 20].

Frivolous Litigation – Court’s Duty – High Court emphasized judicial scrutiny when multiple FIRs are filed or vexatious allegations made to settle personal scores – Cited Supreme Court decisions in Mohd. Wajid, Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, Bhajan Lal, and Rajiv Thapar to hold that courts must “read between the lines” when allegations appear fabricated [Paras 13–21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Summoning order dated 23.07.2024 set aside – All criminal proceedings against the appellant in Complaint No. 26 of 2023 quashed.

Criminal Law – Cognizance – Omnibus Allegations – Appellants Nos.2 to 6 (family members of husband) challenged cognizance order passed by the SC/ST Special Court for offences under IPC, Dowry Prohibition Act and SC/ST Act – No specific allegations made against them except general claims of instigation and caste-based remarks – Held: Continuation of proceedings against them would be abuse of legal process – Cognizance quashed [Paras 10-12]

Domestic Violence – Matrimonial Dispute – Allegations of harassment and caste-based abuse by husband (Accused No.1) and in-laws – FIR and 161 CrPC statements revealed no particular incidents or evidence against in-laws – Court found accusations exaggerated and unsubstantiated against Accused Nos.2 to 6 – Held: Allegations against in-laws not sufficient to proceed to trial [Paras 11-12]

Section 3(2)(va), SC/ST Act – Scheduled Offences – Court held that offences alleged against Accused Nos.2 to 6 did not qualify as scheduled offences under the SC/ST Act – Cognizance taken without reasoning by trial judge – Proceedings quashed for these accused [Para 12]

Appeal Outcome – Criminal Appeal Nos.758, 757 and 759 allowed – Cognizance against Accused Nos.3 to 6 quashed – Appeal by Accused No.2 abated due to death – Appeal by Accused No.1 (Peeta Raman) dismissed as prima facie material existed for full trial [Paras 12-13]

Decision: Criminal Appeals allowed in part – Cognizance order dated 10.04.2024 quashed against Accused Nos.3 to 6 – Proceedings against Accused No.2 abated – Appeal of Accused No.1 dismissed – Trial to continue against him.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Summoning Order – Cognizance under Sections 427, 448, 294, and 506-B IPC – Petitioner sought quashing of cognizance order passed by JMFC, Panna, which was affirmed in revision – Held: Trial Court rightly took cognizance under Sections 427 and 506-B IPC based on prima facie evidence from complaint and statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC – However, ingredients of offences under Sections 448 and 294 IPC not made out – Cognizance for these sections set aside – Petition partly allowed [Paras 1, 2, 25 to 29].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – Exercise of power to quash cognizance – Petitioner contended that dispute was purely civil regarding property and false complaint was filed to pressurize her – High Court held that ingredients for Sections 427 and 506-B IPC made out from complaint and supporting statements – At cognizance stage, sufficiency for conviction not required to be tested – Prima facie allegations sufficient to proceed – No abuse of process shown – Invocation of Section 482 CrPC for quashing cognizance refused for Sections 427 and 506-B IPC [Paras 3 to 5, 23 to 25].

Criminal Procedure – Issuance of Process – Section 204 CrPC – Principles reiterated – Magistrate is only required to see if sufficient ground exists to proceed – Not necessary to record detailed reasons – Detailed scrutiny of evidence or defence not required at this stage – Relying on Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta (2019) 20 SCC 539 and Deepak Gaba (2023) 3 SCC 423 – Held: Magistrate rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 204 for offences prima facie made out [Paras 8 to 10, 22].

Police Investigation – Enquiry Report under Section 202 CrPC – Delay and Gaps – Police enquiry report submitted nearly two years after incident claimed no cognizable offence committed – However, no spot panchnama, inspection report, or supporting documentation produced – No notice given to complainant to produce witnesses – Report based solely on accused’s version without reasoning for discarding complainant’s version – Held: Enquiry report lacks evidentiary value to negate occurrence of incident [Paras 13 to 19].

Penal Code – Section 427 IPC – Mischief – Breaking of wall causing ₹50,000 loss alleged – Petitioner allegedly demolished complainant’s wall with help of laborers – Incident witnessed by others – Prima facie ingredients of mischief made out – Cognizance justified [Paras 12, 20, 21, 25].

Penal Code – Section 506-B IPC – Criminal Intimidation – Threat to kill with firearm alleged – Specific allegation in complaint and supporting statements – Consistent testimony from complainant and witnesses – Held: Prima facie offence made out under Section 506-B – Cognizance upheld [Paras 12, 20, 21, 25].

Penal Code – Sections 448 and 294 IPC – No Prima Facie Case – Mere trespass or entry not made out in context of wall breaking – No specific abusive words mentioned in complaint – Alleged obscenities not detailed or supported sufficiently – Held: Ingredients of Sections 448 and 294 IPC not made out – Cognizance for these sections set aside [Paras 20, 21, 26, 27].

Civil vs Criminal Dispute – Allegation of property dispute being given colour of criminal case – Court held that complaint disclosed criminal intent beyond civil dispute – Prima facie case of criminal trespass and intimidation made out independently – Mere pendency of civil suit not ground to quash criminal proceedings – Held: No misuse of criminal process proved [Paras 3, 4, 5, 23].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Cognizance under Sections 448 and 294 IPC set aside – Cognizance under Sections 427 and 506-B IPC upheld – Proceedings to continue for these offences [Paras 27 to 29].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Alleged Inflammatory Social Media Message – Communal Harmony – FIR registered under Sections 299 and 353(3) BNS alleging that petitioner circulated an inflammatory WhatsApp message after arrest of his brother under the Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 – Petitioner contended that the message merely expressed resentment over brother’s arrest and faith in judiciary – No inflammatory content per se – Held: Though the message did not explicitly refer to religion, its underlying tone conveyed that the petitioner’s brother was targeted for belonging to a particular religious community – Such message, by its implication, prima facie capable of promoting feelings of enmity and hatred between communities – May not attract Section 353(3) BNS but falls within scope of Section 353(2) BNS – Investigation cannot be interdicted at threshold [Paras 7–9].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Judicial Interference under Article 226 – FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence – Quashing at incipient stage would foreclose legitimate investigation – No grounds made out for exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No interference warranted with investigation in Case Crime No. 421 of 2025 – Matter to proceed in accordance with law.

Criminal Law – Bail – Land Dispute – Delay in FIR – Petitioners alleged to have threatened and criminally intimidated complainant over land pooling – Multiple incidents reported with significant delays (up to 68 days) – Held: Delay in filing FIR and complainant’s own criminal antecedents cast doubt on veracity – Bail granted [Paras 5, 14, 15, 19].

Anticipatory Bail – Accused No.2 – Political Vendetta – Petitioner claimed political rivalry as motive for false implication – No recovery from petitioner – Call data record not sufficient at this stage – Held: Custodial interrogation not justified – Pre-arrest bail granted with conditions [Paras 6, 8, 21–22].

Regular Bail – Accused No.1 – Technical Objection Overruled – Bail application filed before formal arrest – Court held liberty must prevail over procedural technicality – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 17, 18, 23].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Presumption of Innocence – Mere pendency of criminal cases cannot be ground to deny bail – Petitioners entitled to fair process – Supreme Court’s ruling in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. reiterated [Paras 20, 21].

Decision: Criminal Petition Nos. 9677 and 9967 of 2025 allowed – Bail and pre-arrest bail granted to Accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively with stringent conditions – Criminal Petition No. 9669 of 2025 dismissed as infructuous [Para 24].

Criminal Law – Gangsters Act – Proceedings Based on Acquitted Base Case – Applicant sought quashing of proceedings under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act based on a solitary FIR in which he was later acquitted – Held: Once the accused is acquitted in the base case forming the foundation of gang chart, continuation of prosecution under the Gangsters Act becomes unsustainable – Gangster proceedings quashed as per ratio in Farhana v. State of U.P., 2024 INSC 118 and other High Court precedents [Paras 3, 5-6].

Judicial Precedent – Applicability of Supreme Court Ruling – Court relied on binding precedent of Farhana (Supreme Court) to hold that exoneration in the primary case bars continued prosecution under the Gangsters Act – Also followed prior rulings of Allahabad High Court in Salim @ Piyaoo, Jai Prakash, and Sartaj cases [Para 5].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Court quashed the charge sheet, cognizance/summoning order, and entire trial proceedings in Gangsters Act case – Clarified that authorities remain free to initiate fresh proceedings based on any other future or independent cases [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Application allowed – Charge-sheet dated 10.03.2023, cognizance order dated 05.04.2023, and entire proceedings in Session Case No. 249 of 2023 under Gangsters Act quashed as against applicant – Liberty reserved for authorities to initiate action in future based on other grounds or cases [Paras 6-8].