Criminal Appeal – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of sexual offences and assault – Appellants seeking quashing of FIR – Examination of the factual matrix and legal submissions – Absence of specific details in the FIR regarding date and time of alleged offences – Completion of investigation and readiness of charge sheet – Court’s duty to examine whether FIR is manifestly frivolous or vexatious – Importance of considering attending circumstances beyond the averments – Possibility of private vengeance or personal grudge in multiple FIRs – Appellants directed to prefer discharge application under Section 227 of the CrPC before the Trial Court. [Para 7]

Observation – Duty of the Court in scrutinizing FIRs for quashing – Court’s obligation to look beyond the averments and consider overall circumstances – Reading between the lines in frivolous or vexatious proceedings – Multiple FIRs indicating the possibility of personal grudge or private vengeance. [Para 10]

Conclusion – Appeal disposed with liberty for appellants to file discharge application under Section 227 of the CrPC before the Trial Court – Matter to be examined based on materials collected during investigation – Importance of considering the possibility of personal grudge or private vengeance in the registration of multiple FIRs. [Para 11]

Insurance Claim – Prawn Cultivation – Repudiation of claim by insurance company – Calculation of admissible loss – Methods of computation as per insurance policy – Application of principles of good faith and fair dealing in insurance contracts – Relevance of death certificate issued by independent authorities – Quantum of claim and interest – Appeal against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – Court's observations on computation methods and insurance company's actions – Compensation determined based on just and equitable principles. [Para 1-2]

Calculation Methods – Insurance policy provided three methods for computing admissible loss – Input Cost Method, Unit Cost Method, and Fortnightly Valuation Method – Appellant's computations based on actual evidence and death certificate – NCDRC's reliance on survey report despite rejecting certain conclusions – Court's evaluation of average body weight and validity of death certificate – Importance of good faith and fair dealing in insurance contracts. [Para 8, Para 10, Para 11]

Death Certificate – Significance of death certificate issued by independent authorities – Insurance company's own direction to obtain death certificate from relevant bodies – Duty of both parties to observe utmost good faith in insurance contracts – Insurance company's obligation to consider evidence objectively – Inability to disregard or dismiss evidence just to its detriment. [Para 11, Para 12]

Quantum of Claim and Interest – NCDRC's computation of loss and interest – Appellant's entitlement to the lowest of computed values – Respondent insurance company's delay in settling claim – Appropriate interest rate based on prevailing bank deposit rates – Equitable settlement of claim and interest. [Para 14, Para 15]

Appeal allowed – Appellant entitled to receive balance amount of claim with interest – Principles of good faith and fair dealing reiterated in insurance contracts – Timely and just settlement of claims emphasized. [Para 16]

Criminal Appeal – Quashing of FIR – Appellant challenges High Court's order rejecting the Writ Petition to quash FIR – Final report subsequently filed by the investigation officer stating no case against appellant – Acceptance of final report by Additional Sessions Judge – Appellant seeks relief on the basis of these developments – Appeal disposed of. [Para 2-6]

Factual Matrix – FIR lodged under Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Allegations of forming a gang, spreading terror, and unlawful possession – Criminal history of accused mentioned – Investigation officer filed final report stating no case – Additional Sessions Judge accepted final report – No challenge to final report – Conclusion reached that present matter requires no further adjudication. [Para 3-5]

Observations and Conclusion – Appellant's senior counsel points out investigation developments – Final report accepted, no case to proceed against appellant – Observations made relevant only to the present FIR and proceedings – Observations won't impact pending cases – Appeal disposed of accordingly. [Para 6-7]

Criminal Appeal – Quashing of FIR – Delay in lodging FIR – Allegations of robbery, criminal intimidation, intentional insult – Appellants challenging the continuation of criminal proceedings – Whether FIR discloses essential ingredients of offences – Consideration of delay in lodging FIR – Evaluation of criminal antecedents – Abuse of process of law – High Court's order quashed. [Para 1]

Offences of Robbery, Criminal Intimidation, and Intentional Insult – Analysis of IPC Sections 390, 391, 395, 503, 504, and 506 – Essential ingredients to establish robbery, criminal intimidation, and intentional insult – Interpretation of the words “for that end” in Section 390 – Requirement for threat of injury in criminal intimidation – Nature of intentional insult provoking breach of peace – Examination of ingredients of Sections 503, 504, and 506. [Paras 11-31]

Delay in Lodging FIR – Significance of delay in lodging FIR – Importance of disclosing date and time of alleged incident – Implications of vague and general allegations without plausible explanation – Balance between law enforcement and protection of citizens from harassment – Inherent right of accused to not be disturbed without sufficient grounds – Impact of criminal antecedents on quashing proceedings. [Paras 32-35]

Quashing of criminal proceedings – Abuse of process of law – Impugned order of High Court set aside – FIR and consequential proceedings arising from FIR No. 224 of 2022 dated 19.09.2022 registered at Police Station Mirzapur, Saharanpur, State of U.P. quashed – Observations relevant only for the specific case – No bearing on pending criminal prosecutions or other proceedings. [Paras 36-37]

Consumer Disputes - Insurance Claim - Deficiency in Service - Appellant's claim for insurance coverage of ammonia gas leakage rejected by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) - Appeal to Supreme Court - Evaluation of surveyor and expert reports crucial in determining cause of leakage and coverage - Consideration of cited decisions - Proper approach in evaluating technical evidence emphasized - Analysis of surveyor's report and expert opinions - Deficiencies in surveyor's report identified, lacking scientific investigation - Flaws in NCDRC's approach to expert reports highlighted - Importance of considering reports as a whole emphasized - Inference drawn in favor of appellant's version - Repudiation of claim based on wear and tear deemed deficiency in service - Remedies and conclusions - Appellant granted lump-sum settlement due to deficiency in service - Interest accrues if settlement not paid within specified timeframe - Appeal allowed, NCDRC judgment rectified.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 195A — Offence under Section 195A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Elements and procedure — A detailed analysis of Section 195A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the Court elucidates the nature of the offence involving threats to witnesses for the purpose of inducing false evidence and the procedure for complaint filing in such cases — The Court interprets the relevant provisions and discusses the need for a witness or any person to file a complaint in relation to the offence under Section 195A IPC — Emphasis on lodging the complaint before the Court recording the evidence. (Para 17-18)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 386 — Extortion — Elements of the offence — The Court provides an in-depth exposition of the offence of extortion under Section 386 IPC — The Court delves into the key requirement of inducing a person to deliver property or valuable security through fear of injury — Distinction between theft and extortion elucidated, highlighting the necessity of victim's consent obtained under duress in the latter — Reference to illustrative examples from IPC and precedent cases. (Para 20-23)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Parameters for quashing — Discussion on the guidelines established by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana, (1992) 1 SCC 335 — The Court explains the various criteria that warrant the quashing of an FIR, including instances where the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence, or are inherently improbable, absurd, or manifestly mala fide — Court's duty to closely examine the FIR and attendant circumstances in cases of ulterior motives for vengeance. allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order. (Para 25-26)

Criminal Appeal – Registration of FIR – Appellant’s challenge against dismissal of writ petition seeking directions to register an offence – Deceased severely assaulted by accused, but police failed to register complaint – Appellant’s approach to High Court – Impugned order dismissed writ petition – Appellant approached Supreme Court – Registration of FIR mandatory under Section 154 of CrPC for cognizable offences – Citing “Lalita Kumari vs. State of UP” – Constitution Bench decision reiterated – Preliminary inquiry only to ascertain cognizable offence – Illustrative cases requiring preliminary inquiry mentioned – High Court’s order set aside – Complaints to be proceeded with in accordance with law.

Personal Liberty – Emphasis on mandatory FIR registration for cognizable offences – No preliminary inquiry if the information discloses a cognizable offence – Preliminary inquiry’s scope limited to identifying cognizable offences – Time-bound preliminary inquiry, not exceeding 7 days – Record of all information related to cognizable offences to be maintained.

Supreme Court allows appeal – High Court’s order dismissed – FIR registration directed for appellant’s complaints – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Appeal – Bail – High Court order granting bail to the accused and issuing guidelines for issuing proclamations under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. – Observations on the impugned order’s oversight of certain sections – Directions set aside to the State and Courts regarding the issuance of proclamations – Order granting bail to the accused left undisturbed. [Para 1]

Interpretation of Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C – Accused’s counsel and State counsel submit procedural errors in designating a witness as a proclaimed person – High Court notes the discrepancy between the purpose of Section 82 and its application in this case – Court’s inadvertent oversight of important provisions such as Form 5, 6, Sections 83 and 174A – High Court’s directions set aside due to this oversight. [Para 2]

Consequences of non-appearance in response to a proclamation under Section 82 – Accused facing imprisonment for a term up to three years or fine, and for a term up to seven years if declared as a proclaimed offender – High Court’s directions overlooked these consequences – Impugned order’s directions to State and Courts set aside. [Para 3]

Guidelines for issuing proclamations – High Court’s directions overlooked important steps and provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure – Oversight regarding Form 5, 6, Sections 83 and 174A – Set aside directions for the State and Courts within specified territories – Order granting bail to the accused remains unchanged. [Para 4]

Conclusion – High Court’s directions regarding issuing of proclamations set aside due to oversight of important provisions – Accused’s bail remains intact – Special leave petition allowed in specific terms – Pending applications, if any, disposed of. [Para 5]

Referred Cases in the above Judgment: Not explicitly mentioned in the provided text.

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Parameters: The Court reiterated the parameters for quashing an FIR, as established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, including scenarios where the allegations do not constitute an offense, the allegations are absurd, and the proceedings are manifestly attended with malice.

Facts - Allegations - Investigation: The appellant challenged an order of the High Court rejecting his petition to quash an FIR registered against him for offenses under the IPC. The FIR was based on allegations that the appellant, in a position of influence, committed offenses such as dacoity, kidnapping, and extortion. Investigations revealed a history of multiple FIRs registered against the appellant and his family.

Analysis - Ingredients of Offense - Abuse of Process: The Court analyzed the content of the FIR, considering the history of multiple FIRs and the possibility of abuse of process. The Court concluded that the allegations made in the FIR, even if true, did not meet the necessary criteria to constitute the alleged offenses, particularly dacoity. The Court emphasized the importance of not restricting analysis to the face value of the FIR but considering surrounding circumstances.

Appeal Allowed - set aside the High Court's order - quashed the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR. (Para No. 10, 14, 20, 26, 32, 35)