Criminal Revision Case - Maintainability - Interlocutory order - Order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Deposit of compensation/fine amount - Whether revision against such order maintainable - Held, the order passed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is an interlocutory order and not subject to revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - The order does not determine the final rights of the parties and is merely a procedural matter - Non-passing of such order does not culminate the proceedings - Revision dismissed as not maintainable - However, liberty granted to approach the court under the inherent power of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Criminal Revision Case - Maintainability - Interlocutory order - Order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Deposit of compensation/fine amount - Whether revision against such order maintainable - Held, the order passed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is an interlocutory order and not subject to revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - The order does not determine the final rights of the parties and is merely a procedural matter - Non-passing of such order does not culminate the proceedings - Revision dismissed as not maintainable - However, liberty granted to approach the court under the inherent power of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Criminal Revision Case - Maintainability - Interlocutory order - Order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Deposit of compensation/fine amount - Whether revision against such order maintainable - Held, the order passed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is an interlocutory order and not subject to revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - The order does not determine the final rights of the parties and is merely a procedural matter - Non-passing of such order does not culminate the proceedings - Revision dismissed as not maintainable - However, liberty granted to approach the court under the inherent power of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Criminal Revision Case - Maintainability - Interlocutory order - Order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Deposit of compensation/fine amount - Whether revision against such order maintainable - Held, the order passed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is an interlocutory order and not subject to revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - The order does not determine the final rights of the parties and is merely a procedural matter - Non-passing of such order does not culminate the proceedings - Revision dismissed as not maintainable - However, liberty granted to approach the court under the inherent power of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Criminal Revision Case - Maintainability - Interlocutory order - Order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Deposit of compensation/fine amount - Whether revision against such order maintainable - Held, the order passed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is an interlocutory order and not subject to revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - The order does not determine the final rights of the parties and is merely a procedural matter - Non-passing of such order does not culminate the proceedings - Revision dismissed as not maintainable - However, liberty granted to approach the court under the inherent power of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Custody of Minor - Mother's Right – Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 – Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Custody of minor girl child aged less than 5 years – Petitioner-mother sought custody from father and grandparents – Held, mother's love and care indispensable for healthy growth – Grandparents unable to provide equivalent maternal care – Child’s welfare best served with mother – Custody granted to petitioner-mother. [Paras 1-18]

Child Welfare and Best Interests – Analysis – Maternal care crucial for child’s development, particularly under 5 years – Father's statement of child’s reluctance to go with mother insignificant for child’s best interests – Grandparents’ bond due to prolonged stay but cannot substitute maternal care – Custody aligned with statutory preference under Section 6 for mother of minor under 5 years. [Paras 10-18]

Judicial Review and Habeas Corpus – Maintainability – Writ of Habeas Corpus maintainable where civil court remedies ineffective or unavailable – Detention by parent or others deemed illegal or detrimental to child’s welfare – Habeas Corpus appropriate for custody matters in exceptional cases, emphasizing child’s welfare over procedural formalities. [Paras 16-17]

Decision – Custody to Mother – Habeas Corpus petition allowed – Custody of minor girl child granted to petitioner-mother – Orders for child’s production and handover to petitioner enforced. [Paras 18]

Criminal Procedure – Non-Bailable Warrants – Proclamation of Offender – Petition to quash warrants and proclamation – Criminal Appeal against order declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender – Held, Petitioner, despite being aware of the proceedings and warrants, failed to appear before the trial court – Justification provided for issuance of non-bailable warrants and proclamation as offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C. – No procedural irregularity or prejudice against petitioner found – Petition dismissed.

Criminal Law – Influence and Abuse of Power – Analysis – Held, accused, being an influential political figure, exercised undue influence to evade judicial proceedings – Police authorities' reluctance and perceived threats from the petitioner’s supporters noted – Held, such influence and evasion tactics do not entitle the petitioner to any judicial indulgence – Petitioner's argument of availing remedies insufficient to quash the proceedings.

Decision – Quashing of Non-Bailable Warrants and Proclamation – Petition dismissed – Court confirms validity of non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. – No infirmity found in the trial court’s actions – Observations confined to the decision on procedural grounds without delving into the merits of the accusations.

Criminal Law – Rape – Conviction and Sentence – Appeal against the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC for sexually assaulting his minor daughter. Held, the prosecutrix's testimony, supported by medical evidence and other witnesses, is reliable and cogent. The delay in lodging the FIR does not invalidate the complaint, given societal reluctance to report such crimes. The appellant’s conviction and life sentence upheld. [Paras 11-27]

Testimony of Victim – Reliability – The prosecutrix's consistent and detailed account of her father's sexual assaults, corroborated by medical evidence and her friend's mother, is credible. The lack of physical injuries or seminal traces does not negate rape, as minimal penetration suffices for conviction. [Paras 11-22]

Delay in FIR – Societal Attitudes – The delay in reporting the crime is understandable due to societal stigma and the victim's young age. This does not undermine the prosecutrix's credibility. [Para 25]

Sentencing – No Leniency for Sexual Offences Against Children – The appellant's actions as a father and protector justify a severe sentence. The life imprisonment sentence is appropriate and serves as a deterrent for such grave offences. [Paras 28-30]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant's conviction and life sentence are affirmed, with no grounds for leniency or reversal. [Para 31]

Condonation of Delay - Application for condonation of delay of 215 days in re-filing the appeal - Delay condoned. [Para 2,5]

Ancestral Property - Validity of Will - Plaintiffs claiming suit properties to be ancestral and seeking a declaration of their rights - Defendant setting up a will excluding plaintiffs - Will duly proved and accepted by lower courts - Exclusion of natural heirs not a suspicious circumstance - Deprivation of natural heirs a common feature of wills - Plaintiffs failing to establish ancestral nature of suit properties - Concurrent findings of lower courts upheld - Appeal dismissed. [Para 15-20]

Criminal Law - Additional Evidence - Filling Lacunae – Petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging order allowing additional evidence under Sections 246(6) and 311 CrPC – Complainant sought to examine additional witnesses after evidence closed – Held, Section 311 CrPC allows additional evidence only if essential to secure justice – No evidence shown to be crucial – Allowing application aimed to fill prosecution lacunae – Petition allowed, order set aside. [Paras 1-21]

Discretionary Power under Section 311 CrPC – Analysis – Section 311 grants courts discretion to summon and examine additional witnesses if essential to the just decision of the case – The power must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily – Absence of any grave prejudice or failure of justice due to non-examination of witnesses noted – Discretion improperly exercised by trial court. [Paras 16-21]

Principles of Natural Justice and Fair Trial – Reference to Supreme Court guidelines on exercising discretion under Section 311 – Emphasis on judicious use to prevent miscarriage of justice – Additional evidence sought did not meet criteria of necessity for justice – Complainant failed to justify the need for further testimony. [Paras 17-18]

Decision – Petition Allowed – Order allowing additional evidence set aside – Application for additional witnesses deemed an attempt to fill gaps in prosecution case – Trial court’s decision reversed – Petitioner's rights upheld. [Para 22]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Compromise in Financial Offences – Petitioners seek quashing of FIR based on compromise for offences under IPC and allegations of GST evasion. Held, offences under special statutes or involving financial and economic well-being of the State cannot be quashed on the basis of a compromise. Investigation may reveal offences under the GST Act, making the FIR not purely a private dispute. Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-9]

Jurisdiction of High Court – Exercise of Inherent Powers – The inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should not be used to quash FIRs in cases involving special statutes or economic offences, even if a compromise is reached. The societal interest in prosecuting serious crimes overrides private settlements. [Para 7]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The petition for quashing the FIR is dismissed, but petitioners may reapproach the court if no GST Act offences are found during the investigation. [Paras 8-9]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Regular Bail – Non-Commercial Quantity – Petition for regular bail where the petitioner was implicated based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused and a small quantity of 35 grams of heroin was recovered from him. Held, the petitioner was not named in the initial secret information, and the recovery from him is significantly below the commercial quantity threshold. Co-accused granted bail, petitioner’s bail also granted due to similar circumstances. [Paras 7-8]

Implication Based on Co-accused’s Disclosure – The petitioner was implicated based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, who did not specifically state that the petitioner supplied the narcotics. The main recovery of 295 grams of heroin was not from the petitioner. [Para 7]

Decision – Bail Granted – The petitioner is granted bail on the basis of non-commercial quantity recovery, co-accused’s bail, and prolonged custody. Bail granted with conditions to ensure non-tampering of evidence and regular court appearances. [Paras 8-10]

Criminal Law – Bail – NDPS Act – Petition for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Recovery of 295 grams of heroin not effected from the petitioner – Petitioner arrested based on the disclosure statement of co-accused – Recovery from petitioner is 35 grams, less than the commercial quantity of 250 grams – Co-accused already granted regular bail – Petition allowed. [Para 7]

Role of Accused – Analysis – Petitioner not named in the secret information – Recovery of 295 grams not linked directly to petitioner – Statements of co-accused do not implicate petitioner directly – Matter to be adjudicated during trial – Recovery from petitioner is far less than the stipulated commercial quantity. [Para 7]

Decision – Bail Granted – Petitioner granted regular bail considering lesser recovery amount and co-accused's bail – Conditions imposed to ensure trial integrity and prevent tampering with evidence. [Para 8-10]