Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonored Cheque – Petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.20,00,000 to the respondent which was dishonored – Respondent filed a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act – Petitioner sought production of original agreement via Section 91 Cr.P.C., alleging potential discrepancy in ink used for signatures [Paras 1-3].

Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Discretionary Power – Trial Court’s discretion under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call for documents – Petitioner’s application lacked clear indication of how the original document would materially aid the case – Trial Court found no necessity or desirability for the original agreement as certified copy was already on record and all entries were clearly visible [Paras 5-8].

Presumption under Section 139 N.I. Act – Burden on Complainant – Established law requires complainant to initially discharge burden of proving case – Respondent had submitted certified copy of agreement, fulfilling preliminary requirement – High Court found no error in trial court’s discretion to reject petitioner’s application [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Dismissed – High Court upheld trial court’s order, rejecting the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Found no error in exercise of trial court’s discretion – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 12-14].

Criminal Law – Acquittal and Probation – Accused-respondents acquitted of serious charges under Sections 308/34, 325, 324, 323 IPC – Convicted under Sections 325/34, 324/34, 323/34, 341 IPC – Trial court extended benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act – Petitioner challenges acquittal and probation [Paras 1-2].

Evaluation of Evidence – Trial court acquitted accused on grounds of inconsistencies in witness statements – High Court finds prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Major contradictions and omissions noted in witness testimonies – High Court upholds trial court's assessment [Paras 6-8].

Probation of Offenders Act – Application and Benefit – Trial court applied Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to convicted respondents – High Court finds no error in granting probation given the circumstances and evidence – Emphasizes judicial discretion in applying probation [Paras 9-10].

Appellate Review – Standards of Interference – High Court refers to Supreme Court precedents on interference in acquittal judgments – Stresses reluctance to interfere unless judgment is clearly unreasonable or erroneous – High Court finds trial court's judgment reasonable and well-founded [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition Dismissed – High Court upholds acquittal under serious charges and application of probation – No error found in trial court's judgment – Petitioner's grounds for revision not substantiated [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder – Appellant convicted under Sections 302, 436, 447 IPC and Section 3/27 of the Arms Act – Trial court relied on eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and motive – High Court re-examines evidence and finds significant discrepancies, lack of corroboration, and unreliable eyewitness accounts – Conviction quashed, appellant acquitted [Paras 1-25].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Alleged eyewitnesses, including the complainant and his sons, claimed to have witnessed the incident – High Court finds inconsistencies in their statements and lack of corroboration from the crime scene – Discrepancies regarding the presence and activities of the witnesses at the time of the incident undermine credibility [Paras 12-17].

Motive and Enmity – Prosecution argued motive based on longstanding enmity over land disputes – High Court acknowledges enmity but notes it as a double-edged sword, potentially leading to false implication – No conclusive evidence linking appellant to the crime based solely on enmity [Para 19].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Postmortem confirms homicidal death by gunshot – However, forensic evidence, including the recovery of the weapon and its connection to the appellant, lacks conclusive proof – High Court emphasizes need for corroborative evidence beyond medical findings [Paras 10, 14].

Appellate Review – Standards of Proof – High Court reiterates principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Finds trial court's reliance on prosecution evidence insufficiently scrutinized – Emphasizes requirement for credible and trustworthy evidence for conviction in serious offences like murder [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 24-25].

Civil Procedure – Remand Order – Appellate court quashed trial court's judgment and remanded case for fresh consideration – Appellant contended appellate court failed to specify new issues or necessity for additional evidence – High Court finds remand order lacks justification, sets it aside, and directs appellate court to decide appeal on merits [Paras 1-13].

Order 41 CPC – Powers of Appellate Court – Remand under Rules 23, 23A, 24 – Appellate court must specify issues or necessity for remand – Evidence on record sufficient for adjudication mandates final decision without remand – High Court emphasizes appellate court’s obligation to decide appeal on merits unless retrial is essential [Paras 7-10].

Judicial Precedents – High Court refers to Kerala and Allahabad High Courts' rulings, emphasizing minimal use of remand powers and appellate court’s duty to decide on merits when evidence suffices – References: Gopalkrishnan v. V. Ponnappan, Prem Raj v. Nagar Palika, RSRTC v. Haridwarilal Sharma [Para 10].

Decision – Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Allowed – Remand order quashed – Appellate court directed to hear and decide appeal on merits – Parties to appear before appellate court on specified date [Paras 11-13].

Criminal Law – Conviction Under Common Intention – Appellants convicted for offences under Sections 302/149 IPC – Court finds material contradictions in eyewitness testimonies – Appellants not proven to have individually caused fatal injuries – Conviction under Section 302/149 IPC set aside, convictions under Sections 147, 323, 325/149 IPC maintained [Paras 1-18].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Several prosecution witnesses turned hostile – Injured eyewitness could not identify attackers due to darkness – Court notes inconsistencies and contradictions in statements regarding involvement of accused in causing fatal injuries [Paras 12-14].

Evidence and Delay – Incident reported with two-hour delay – Bloodstained lathis recovered but blood group undetermined – Court finds prosecution failed to conclusively link appellants to fatal injuries [Paras 8, 16].

Joint Liability – Applicability of Section 149 IPC – Material contradictions in evidence regarding common intention – No direct evidence linking surviving appellants to causing fatal injuries – Court emphasizes requirement for clear evidence of common object for joint liability [Para 17].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Convictions under Section 302/149 IPC quashed – Convictions under Sections 147, 323, 325/149 IPC maintained – Benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act extended – Appellants' bail bonds discharged [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Law – Acquittal in Rash and Negligent Driving Case – Petitioner’s brother died due to an alleged rash and negligent driving by accused-respondent – Trial court acquitted the respondent, citing major contradictions and lack of conclusive evidence – High Court upholds acquittal, finding no error in trial court’s detailed and reasoned judgment [Paras 1-9].

Evidence Evaluation – Witness Testimony – High Court notes trial court’s thorough assessment of evidence, identifying contradictions and inconsistencies in witness statements – Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 8-9].

Appellate Review – Parameters for Interference – High Court refers to Supreme Court precedents on interference in acquittal judgments – Emphasizes reluctance to interfere unless judgment is contrary to evidence, clearly unreasonable, or based on ignored material evidence [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition Dismissed – High Court finds no compelling reason to overturn acquittal – Petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal or factual error warranting interference – Trial court’s judgment upheld [Paras 11-12].

Administrative Law – Railway Licenses – Petitioners challenged Clause 5 and Clause 11 of the 2017 Policy, which abolished the renewal and extension of licenses for MPS units, arguing that it violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution – Petitioners contended they were coerced into converting their stalls to MPS under unequal bargaining conditions – Petitioners sought renewal of licenses in line with past policies and parity with other stall renewals [Paras 1-20].

COVID-19 – Force Majeure Implementation – Petitioners argued the 68-day extension granted due to COVID-19 was arbitrary, asserting other zones received longer extensions – Court found extension periods were determined by ground realities at individual stations – Petitioners were advised to seek arbitration for further grievances [Paras 30-35].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Court upheld the validity of Clause 5 and Clause 11 of the 2017 Policy – No renewal or extension of licenses beyond the tenure specified in the 2017 Policy – Petitioners granted three months from the end of their extended license period or from the date of judgment to vacate their stalls – Rights to pursue arbitration for any further claims were reserved [Paras 36-38].
 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Conviction based on dishonour of cheque – Petitioner convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and compensation of Rs. 5,50,000 – During revision, parties reached a compromise – Court directed statements to be recorded and verified the compromise – Genuineness confirmed, and proceedings quashed [Paras 1-9].

Compromise in Criminal Cases – Judicial Precedents – Various precedents discussed where post-conviction compromise led to acquittal – Court emphasized recovery of debt over incarceration – Applied inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings based on compromise [Paras 5-8].

15% Compensation Fee – Directed petitioner to pay 15% of cheque amount (Rs. 82,500) to Haryana State Legal Services Authority by 31.07.2024 – Failure to comply would result in automatic recall of the order [Para 11].

Relief – Revision petition allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Subject to compliance with payment conditions – Non-compliance would recall the order automatically [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Law – FIR Quashing – Sections 420, 120-B IPC – Alleged Evasion of Stamp Duty – Petitioners sold property recorded as residential land in revenue records – FIR alleged commercial land sold as residential to evade stamp duty – Petitioners contended liability to pay stamp duty rests on purchaser – Court found no misdescription by petitioners regarding land use – FIR quashed [Paras 2-29].

Mens Rea – Essential Element of Crime – Absence of Criminal Intent – No False Declaration – Petitioners did not misrepresent land use – Absence of mens rea for evading stamp duty – Investigating Agency’s action deemed misuse of authority [Paras 20-27].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – High Court's Interference – Criminal Proceedings – FIR found inherently improbable – Allegations insufficient to make out prima facie case – Investigation not warranted [Paras 9-11, 26-29].

Decision: FIR in Crime No.88/2022 registered by EOW, Bhopal quashed. Petition allowed.