Additional Evidence – Judicial Discretion – Criminal Appeal – Held: The Appellate Court’s discretion under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to allow additional evidence is limited to cases where such evidence is essential for a just decision. The petitioner’s failure to produce evidence earlier due to negligence does not justify reopening the case to fill gaps. The dismissal of the application for additional evidence is upheld. [Paras 1-9]

Cheque Dishonor – Defence Evidence – Rejected Appeal – Held: Petitioner’s argument that the cheque did not bear his signature was deemed an afterthought. No evidence or response was provided during the trial to support this claim, and ample opportunity was given to present such a defence. The conviction and sentence for cheque dishonor are upheld. [Para 8]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The court finds no merit in the petition and affirms the lower court's decisions, maintaining the integrity of the initial trial and appeal proceedings. [Para 9]

Jurisdiction – Revision – Order passed by District Appellate Court allowing the appeal and remanding the matter back to the Trial Court by restoring the civil suit – Petitioner filed a civil revision against this order – High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the revision – Held, process server has not tried to affix the notice as provided under Order 5 Rule 17 of CPC, which cannot be said to be an irregularity, and in fact, it should be deemed to be an illegality, and as held by the Supreme Court, in the absence of affixture of notice, the service of summons on the defendant should be treated as non-service – Learned Judge of the District Appellate Court has committed no illegality or jurisdictional error in reversing the order passed by the Civil Judge and remanding the matter back – No interference is called for – Revision dismissed – Civil suit stayed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh stands vacated – Learned Judge of the Civil Court directed to expedite the matter and conclude it as expeditiously as possible.( Para number: 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11)

      Order: Revision dismissed

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Applicability of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) – Seizure of narcotic substance from a vehicle – Whether the vehicle is a public conveyance – Compliance with Section 42 requirements – Statutory mandate of entry, search, seizure, and arrest – Significance of clear recorded statement – Non-compliance with Section 42 – Importance of rights available to accused under the Act – Statutory restrictions and their strict construction – Bail granted to petitioner with specific conditions. *[Para 1-28]*

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Invocation of Article 227 of the Constitution – Petitioner seeks quashing of lower court's order relating to a compromise decree – Matter comes under High Court's supervisory jurisdiction. [Para 1]

Estate and Succession – Petitioner alleges fraudulent compromise decree depriving her of the share in her father's estate – Challenges the legality and validity of the compromise. [Para 2-3]

Procedural History – Multiple layers of litigation, including initial suit and appeals – Background laid on various orders and judgments that led to the present petition. [Para 4-6]

Opportunity of Hearing – Lack of procedural fairness alleged by petitioner – Claims that she was not given the opportunity to present her case properly in lower court. [Para 7]

Maintainability – Respondents question the maintainability of the application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC – Contend that no application under this rule is maintainable unless a suit is pending. [Para 8]

Interpretation of Law – Importance of Order 23 Rule 3-A CPC and relevant Apex Court precedents – Discusses legal requirements for challenging a compromise decree. [Para 9-10]

Unjust Enrichment – Petitioner argues that time spent in pursuing wrong remedy was overlooked by the trial court – Questions the reasoning behind the impugned order. [Para 11]

Procedural Lapses – High Court observes that the trial court failed to call upon the petitioner to produce necessary evidence – Indicates procedural shortcomings on part of the trial court. [Para 12]

Civil Procedure Code – Object and Scope – Emphasis on the Code’s underlying objective to facilitate justice and not punish litigants for procedural infractions. [Para 13]

Decision – High Court sets aside the impugned order and remands the matter to the trial court – Directs the trial court to reconsider the case in accordance with the law and observations made in the judgment. [Para 14]

 Facts [Para 3-5]

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on May 24, 2014, where Neeraj was shot dead. The FIR was lodged by Dinesh Kumar Singh against Krishnapal, Vikash, and Praveen. Krishnapal and Vikash are the revisionists in this case. The FIR alleges that the revisionists were in a Scorpio car that overtook and stopped Dinesh's car, and then fired shots at Neeraj, resulting in his death.

 Issues [Para 2, 5-6]

1. The revisionists filed this criminal revision to set aside the judgment dated April 28, 2023, which allowed their summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

2. The revisionists claim they were falsely implicated and have an alibi supported by witnesses and Call Detail Reports (CDRs).

3. The trial court allegedly did not consider the material on record and acted in a "mechanical manner."

 Observations [Para 7-9]

1. The revisionists argue that they were in Village Kirthal District Baghpat at the time of the incident, about 100 km away from the crime scene. This alibi is supported by witnesses and CDRs.

2. The opposite party contends that the Investigating Officer was biased and manipulated statements to favor the revisionists.

3. The opposite party also argues that the CDRs and mobile locations are not sufficient to establish an alibi.

 Decision [Para 6]

The trial court's decision to summon the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is being challenged as it allegedly did not consider all available material and acted arbitrarily.

Anticipatory Bail – Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – Petitioner accused in FIR No.31 dated 16.03.2023, under Section 306 IPC, for abetment of suicide – Petitioner and deceased had a history of intimate relations which later became strained – No overt act attributed to the petitioner leading to the suicide of the deceased. [Para 1, 2, 6]

Legal Precedents – Reliance on judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab and Mukesh Kher vs. State of Haryana by the petitioner’s counsel – State counsel relied on unnamed Apex Court judgment and Sudha @ Babli vs. State of Haryana – Case laws not directly applicable to the facts of the present case. [Para 3, 4]

Custodial Interrogation – Court finds custodial interrogation of the petitioner unnecessary – Petitioner is an unmarried girl and no recovery is to be effected from her – Court emphasizes that a lady cannot be forced to marry a person even if she had earlier developed intimacy with him. [Para 6, 7]

Conditions for Bail – Petitioner directed to join investigation as and when required – Bail to be granted upon furnishing of bail bonds/surety bonds – Petitioner to abide by conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. [Para 7]

Decision – Petition allowed – Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions. [Para 7, 8]

Seizure of Currency – Release of Amount – Petitioner seeks release of Indian currency amounting to ₹15,92,000 seized during a search conducted by the respondent under Section 67 of the CGST Act. The petitioner contends that the seizure was not empowered by the said section. [Para 1, 2, 8]

Arrest and Investigation – Petitioner, along with Asif Khan and Arjun Sharma, was arrested and later released on bail. The respondent alleges the petitioner's involvement in a racket of issuing fake invoices. The petitioner denies the allegations and claims coercion in signing various documents. [Para 4, 5, 7]

Incomplete Investigation – Respondent states that the investigation is not yet complete, and therefore, no show-cause notice has been issued. [Para 6]

Legal Precedent – The court refers to a recent decision in Deepak Khandelwal Proprietor M/s Shri Shyam Metal v. Commissioner of CGST, Delhi West &Anr.: 2023:DHC:5823-DB, which favors the petitioner's claim regarding the seizure. [Para 9]

Decision – The court directs the respondent to remit the seized amount to the petitioner's bank account within two weeks, along with accrued interest. The respondent is not precluded from taking any lawful steps or measures. [Para 10, 11]

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner's exclusion from the final category list of KEAM 2023 was illegal due to the absence of a stipulation regarding the mandatory submission of the NEET score card. The court, after referring to a previous writ petition, found no grounds for interfering with the ongoing admission process. Justice Kunhikrishnan highlighted the necessity of maintaining the admission schedule and avoiding disruption to other candidates. The court dismissed the writ petition while emphasizing the need for clarity in future prospectuses regarding the submission of score cards.

Criminal Revision Petition – Dismissal Upheld – Revision petitioner, Lalitha, aggrieved by the Magistrate’s dismissal of her complaint alleging forgery and conspiracy under Sections 120(b), 420, 465, 468 & 471 r/w Section 34 of IPC. High Court upheld the Magistrate’s decision, finding no sufficient ground for proceeding against the respondents. [Para 1-2]

Evidentiary Burden – Failure to Substantiate – Lalitha alleged that her signature was forged in legal documents, causing loss of property. High Court noted her failure to produce any reliable material to substantiate her allegations, leading to the dismissal of her revision petition. [Para 3, 11]

Magistrate’s Discretion under Section 203 Cr.P.C. – Explained – High Court elaborated on the conditions under which a Magistrate may dismiss a complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C., emphasizing that the Magistrate is to consider whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused. [Para 7-8]

Credibility of Complainant – Questioned – High Court pointed out the significant time lapse between Lalitha’s claimed discovery of the forgery and the filing of her complaint, raising questions about her credibility and intentions. [Para 7, 10]

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Clarified – High Court clarified that the revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with appellate jurisdiction. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Magistrate’s well-reasoned decision. [Para 13]