CRPC Case Laws

CHAPTER 1
Subramanian Swamy and ors. Vs. Raju Thru Members, Juvenile Justice Board and anr. (2013) 10 SCC
465

The administration of criminal justice in India can be divided into two broad stages at Which the
machinery operates. The first is the investigation of an alleged offence Leading to prosecution and the
second is the actual prosecution of the offender in a Court of Law.

A ghastly Incident of gang rape took place in a moving bus in the streets of Delhi. In connection with the
said incident six accused were arrested on 22.12.2012, one of whom, namely, the first respondent in the
present special leave petition was a juvenile on the date of the occurrence of the crime. The victim of the
offence died on 29.1.2013. While the Juvenile Justice Board (hereinafter for short “the Board”) was in
session of the matter against the first respondent, the petitioners in the special leave petition
approached the Board seeking implement in the proceedings before the Board and an interpretation of
the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter for short
‘the JJ Act) so as to enable the prosecution of the first respondent in a regular criminal court. The Hon.
Supreme Court by dismissing the petition upheld the constitutional validity of the J.J. Act -2000 (2006)
and stated that “If the provisions of the Act clearly indicate the legislative intent in the light of the
country s international commitments and the same is in conformity with the constitutional
requirements, it is not necessary for the Court to understand the legislation in any other manner. In fact,
if the Act is plainly read and understood, which we must do, the resultant effect thereof is wholly
consistent with The Act, therefore, need not be read down, as suggested, to save it from the vice of
unconstitutionality for article 14. Are such unconstitutionality does not exist

► Iqbal Ismail Sodawala v. State of Maharashtra (1975) 3 SCC 140

✔ Mere procedural irregularity will not vitiate the proceeding and not alter the conviction of the
accused.

✔ It is the procedure that spells much of the difference between the rule & the rule of Whim & caprice.

✔ While the general purpose of criminal procedure is to provide a mechanism for the Administration of
criminal law, its core object is ‘to ensure for the accused a full & fare Trial in accordance with the
principles of natural justice.

(1.) Can a convicted person be said to be Lawfully imprisoned if at the time of his conviction the
Trial judge dictates the judgment but does not sign the same because of its having not been transcribed
is one of the questions which arises for determination in two Petitions Nos. 1522 and 1523 of 1973
which have been Sent from jail by lqbal Ismail Sodawala for issuing a Writ of hebeas corpus. The facts
giving rise to those Two petitions are substantially the same and, therefore, it may be necessary to deal
with only one of them. The Petitioner has also filed petition No. 1637 of 1973 Questioning the validity of
the order of the Registrar of The Bombay High Court declining to place before the Court a petition
received by post from the petitioner Unless it was accompanied by a copy of the register of Petition duly
filled in by the Jail Superintendent. This Judgment would dispose of all the three petitions.

(2.) The petitioner was tried in the Court of Shri. P. K. Gupte, Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater
Bombay for offences under Sections 392 and 397, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was found guilty of
Those offences and was sentenced as per judgment Dated May 12, 1972 to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of seven years. The petitioner after his Conviction was for some time kept in
Aurangabad jail and was thereafter transferred to Nagpur Central Prison. He is now undergoing the
sentence of Imprisonment in that prison. According to the Petitioner, he asked for the copy of the
judgment at the Time it was pronounced, but he was informed that the Same would be sent to him
through jail authorities. The Petitioner thereafter asked the jail authorities to get a Copy of the judgment
so as to enable him to file an appeal. The jail authorities informed the petitioner that they had sent a
number of communications and despite that, copy of the judgment was not yet available. The petitioner
thereupon sent petition No 1 523 of 1973 from jail on January 12 1973 and petition No. 1522 on January
22, 1973.

(3.) In support of his prayer for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner states that the judgment was not
pronounced by the Sessions Judge and that only the Clerk of the court apprised him of the decision
in the case. No judgment, it is stated, could be pronounced till it was complete. It is further the case
of the petitioner that he could not be detained for a period of seven months without being supplied
a copy of the judgment

CHAPTER 2 NA CHAPTER 3
Case: Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, 2013 (1) SCALE 559

Latita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh, Crl. M.P. no. 5029 of 2014 in writ petition (Crl.) No. 8 of 2008

FACTS: The petitioner, a minor girl was kidnapped by local goons. Her father, Bhola Kamat went to Police
station to lodge an FIR which police refused. The father further went to the superintendent of Police and
under his direction a FIR was registered. But even then, investigation was not started, and the police did
not take any measure to nab the accused or recover the minor girl either. Hence, a writ petition was filed
under article 32 before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether the police officer should compulsorily register an FIR under Section 154 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973/173 BNSS relating to Cognizable offence or the police officer to check the
Authenticity of the complaint can conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR?

GUIDELINES:

▪ Registration of FIR brings the criminal process into motion & also makes a documentation of the Initial
facts so that later the PO is not able to make alterations in the initial facts. This will prevent Any foul play
by the police.
▪ FIR is the first step to watch taking justice to the victim moreover it promotes the rule of law, every
Victim of a crime is assured that criminal process will be initiated against the accused.

▪ FIR brings the matter on record & initiates the investigation process & it sets the law into motion. The
Less is the FIR lodged the more will be the situation of lawlessness.
FIR shall be compulsorily registered & the fact that information appears to be false or insufficient is to be
examined after lodging of the FIR. PO has to first lodged the FIR & thereafter he may investigate & if the
FIR found to be false then he can refuse to
investigate & send the occurrence report to the JM. However, if the information does not disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence, then PO may first conduct preliminary investigation to find the
nature of the offence.
It was also held that in some cases of cognizable offence a preliminary inquiry can be Done by PO before
lodging FIR, commercial offences, corruption cases, medical Negligence & also cases where there have
been delay in lodging FIR (3 months or more). However, the court held that preliminary inquiry shall be
conducted within 7 days. Later On, upon a review the period was extended to 15days.
The SC rejected the argument that compulsory registration of FIR will result into more Arrest, it was held
that arrest is not compulsory & therefore it is not necessary that on every FIR there will be arrest.

State of Orissa v. Sharat Chandra Sahu

June 11, 2019
(1996) 6 SCC 435

Facts: – Respondent 1 is the husband of Respondent 2 who made a complaint in writing to the Women‘s
Commission setting out there in that Respondent 1 had contracted a second marriage and had thus
committed an offence punishable under Section 494 IPC. It was also alleged that ever since the marriage
with her, he had been making demands for money being paid to him which amounted to her harassment
and constituted the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC for which Respondent 1 was liable to be
punished.

The Women‘s Commission sent the complaint to the police station. The police investigated the case and
filed a charge-sheet in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate framed charges against Respondent
1 under Section 498-A as also under Section 494 IPC.

Respondent 1 filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code)
in the Orissa High Court for quashing the proceedings and the charges framed against him.

The High Court partly allowed the petition with the findings that since Respondent 2 had not herself
personally filed the complaint under Section 494 IPC, its cognizance could not have been taken by the
Magistrate in view of the provisions contained in Section 198(1) © of the Code. Consequently, the charge
framed by the Magistrate under Section 494 IPC was quashed but the charge under Section 498-A IPC
was maintained and the petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to that extent was
dismissed.
Issue: Whether High Court was right in quashing the charge under S.494 IPC while maintaining the
charge under S.498A?

The judgment of the High Court so far as it relates to the quashing of the charge under Section 494 IPC, is
wholly erroneous and is based on complete ignorance of the relevant statutory provisions. The offence
under Section 494 IPC is non-cognizable and bailable and it is thus obvious that the police could not take
cognizance of this offence and that a complaint had to be filed before a Magistrate. However, the offence
under Section 498-A IPC was a cognizable offence and the police was entitled to take cognizance of the
offence irrespective of the person who gave the first information to it.

The High Court was thus clearly in error in quashing the charge under Section 494 IPC on the ground
that the trial court could not take cognizance of that offence unless a complaint was filed personally by
the wife or any other near relation.

The judgment of the High Court being erroneous has to be set aside.

Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar, (1997) 8 SCC 76

Facts: wife complaints against her husband in CJM court, Kurukshetra u/s 406 IPC/ 316(2) BNS (criminal
Breach of trust) & 498A/ 85 BNS IPC (cruelty by husband).

CJM directed to lodge FIR u/ 406 but send matter u/s 498A to CJM karnal, they also ordered to lodge FIR
u/s 498A. As per s 156(3) cr.pc. /173 BNSS

Issue: can CJM direct to register FIR u/s 156(3)/175 BNSS.

CJM can order only investigation after filing of FIR as per S.156(3)/175 BNSS.

SC explained- it is an implied power of the court. Courts can give direction to register FIR & investigate
the matter.

Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, _ (2008) 2 SCC 409

Facts: Army major's dead body was found on railway track. GPR (railways) said its suicide or accident.
Army after inquiry proceedings came to conclusion that it is suicide. But his father
said its murder so he went to HC under A-226 COI writ petition for investigation by CBI in the matter. It
was dismissed.
Again, he went to SC under wit.
SC explained-
If alternate remedies are available, they one should exhaust them first before coming to Higher
authorities
Can victim demand special agency for speedy investigation? NO
D Mag. Can ask for FIR and investigation
Mag. Can reopen the case & order re-investigation.

CHAPTER 4

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 6 SCC 642 30

Issues:
1. Growth in incidents of Custodial Torture and Deaths by Police.
2.The arbitrariness of Policemen in arresting a person.

3.Is there any need to specify some guidelines to make an arrest?

The Court was of the opinion that custodial violence, including torture and death in lock-up, strikes at the
rule of law. Custodial violence, including torture and death in prisons, was considered by the court to be
one of the worst crimes in a civilized society governed by the rule of law.
The Court observed that despite the constitutional and statutory provisions aimed at safeguarding the
personal liberty and life of a citizen, the growing incidence of torture and deaths in police custody has
been a disturbing factor.
Reference was made to the case of Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) [2] in which the Supreme
Court had held that prisoners and detainees are not deprived of their Fundamental Rights under Article
21 and only the restriction permitted by law could be imposed on the enjoyment of the Fundamental
Rights of prisoners and detained.
The Court issued a list of 11 guidelines in addition to the Constitutional and Statutory
Safeguards to be followed in all cases of arrest and detention.

State of Haryana vs Dinesh Kumar

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that unless a person charged with a crime is in custody, he cannot
apply for bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which enables any person accused of a
crime who is in jail awaiting trial to be granted bail. Before a person who is
accused can seek bail, he must first be in detention and have his movements restricted. When a person
surrenders to the court and complies with its orders, he is said to be in judicial custody.
This rule is being followed in India since then. Therefore, the interpretation of the provisions arrest and
custody are more clearly understood now.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, someone who is in the custody of the Court or the physical custody of an official is in custody
under Section 439. The term 'custody' has several connotations, but the most
common one is that the law has taken control of the individual. According to Section 439, custody
requires the accused's control or, at the very least, physical presence in the courtroom, in this case, the
Supreme Court ruled that unless a person charged with a crime is in custody, he cannot apply for bail
under Section
439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which enables any
person accused of a crime who is in jail awaiting trial to be granted bail. Before a person who is accused
can seek bail, he must first be in detention and have his movements restricted. When a person
surrenders to the court and complies with its orders, he is said to be in judicial custody.
This rule is being followed in India since then. Therefore, the interpretation of the provisions arrest and
custody are more clearly understood now.

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)

Facts
In this case the marriage between appellant (husband) and the respondent (wife) marriage was
solemnized on 1st July 2007.
The respondent (wife) alleged that her in-laws demanded the dowry from her, and the appellant
(husband) also supported his parents. The respondent was driven out of the matrimonial home due to
non- fulfilment of the dowry demand.
The appellant denied all the allegations and filed an application for anticipatory bail which was rejected
by the Session Judge and thereafter by the Patna High Court.
The petitioner was arrested under Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
(DP Act).
Then the Petitioner had moved to the SC by way of a Special Leave Petition for anticipatory bail.
Issues Involved
Whether the police officer can arrest on a mere allegation commission of non-bailable, and cognizable
offence made against a person?
Whether there are any remedies available to the person if section 498A of IPC misused by a woman for
her own advantage?
Whether the decision of the High Court to deny the anticipatory bail was correct?

JUDGMENT
SC discussed the misuse of section 498A of the IPC where the person is arrested by the Police on a mere
allegation without any decent proof.
As far as the first issue is concerned the Court observed that, no arrest can be made in routine manner
and the Police Officer would not arrest any person without reasonable satisfaction after some
investigation.
The Court further overturned the rejection of anticipatory bail by the HC and provided the bail to the
appellant.
The SC provided some mandatory directions for Police to be followed before arresting a person to avoid
unnecessary arrest of accused.

Directions Given by SC
All the State Governments to instruct its Police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under
section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the
parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC.
All Police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under section 41(1)(b)(ii).
The Police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which
necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further
detention.
The magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the Police
officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise
detention.
The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of
the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent
of
Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing.
Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr. PC be served on the accused within two weeks from
the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District
for the reasons to be recorded in writing.
Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the Police officers concerned
liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of Court to be
instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.
Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall
be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

CHAPTER 5
Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 57
Accused cooperated with investigation, so granted bail u/s 439 CRPC
FACTS: In this case allegations against the accused were that they entered a criminal conspiracy for
providing telecom services to other ineligible companies. Due to this, Telecom department suffered huge
loss. CBI court rejected their bail application & high court upheld this decision. Then the matter came
before supreme court.
Supreme court observed-
There is no apprehension of the accused absconding from trial or tempering with the witnesses. Accused
has cooperated with the investigation throughout & his behaviour has been exemplary. Court further
added that personal liberty is at a very high pedestal in our constitution. Mere fact that most people/
society opposing to the personal liberty of the accused, then accused can not be send behind the bar.
The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. Here, apex court grants bail to the accused.

Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC

Facts: In this case, the appellant a minister in the government of Punjab, was facing grave
allegation of corruption against him and others. Application of anticipatory bail was filed in
high court of Punjab & Haryana under S.438, praying that the appellants be directed to be
released on bail in the event of their arrest on the aforesaid charges. A full bench of the High
court dismissed the application. The supreme court, however allowed the application.
Guidelines:
► Anticipatory bail is a pre-arrest legal procedure.
► Its an injunctive order that prevents the custody of accused.
► Some tangible ground must be proved by accused.
► Lodging of FIR not a pre-condition, circumstances be proved.
► HC or COS should decide such application not leave it to the mag.
► Accused after getting anticipatory bail must co-operate in investigation proceedings.
► Anticipatory bail is given for an unlimited period, until completion of trial.

CHAPTER 6
Mohan Singh v. state of Bihar, (2011)9 SCC 227
This criminal appeal has been preferred from the judgment of the High Court.
The High Court upheld the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge. The learned Sessions Court held the appellant guilty of criminal conspiracy for murder under
sections 120B of IPC and of extortion under section 387 of IPC Facts:
There was Conspiracy to commit murder. On appreciation of the evidence, the High Court concluded that
Mohan
Singh was performing one part of the act, and Laxmi Singh performed another part, both performing
their parts of the same act. Thus, the case of conspiracy was made out.
Appellant (accused) was charged with murder, but specific name of section was not mentioned. Lower
court & appellant court convicted the accused. When matter went to supreme court this ques. was
raised for the first time.
It is made very clear in charge that accused agreed with others to commit murder – Accused had full
notice and had ample
opportunity to defend himself against same – And at no earlier stage of proceedings, accused had raised
any grievance of non-mentioning of S.302 IPC in charge – Charge not erroneous.
The purpose of framing a charge is to give intimation to the accused of clear, unambiguous and precise
notice of the Nature of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in the course of a trial. Sec.
211 contents be fulfilled.

• name of charge be mentioned.

• name of specific section be mentioned.

• name of specific law under which charge is made be mentioned.

SC said it’s a valid charge because name of specific section i.e. murder was mentioned.
► SC finding’s- This Court does not find that there is any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding
in the instant Case. This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to take a view different from the one
taken by the High Court.
The appeal is dismissed and the conviction of the appellant under Section 120B of IPC for life
imprisonment is Affirmed.

► Statements of informant (brother of the deceased) were supported by his father & brother. There
were sufficient Evidences to prove criminal conspiracy

Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 9 SCALE 542

► This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of
Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Criminal Revision Petition by way of which, the High Court has
upheld the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge in Revision Petition.
► An FIR was lodged by one Pushpa on 22.3.1997, against the appellant stating that the appellant had
raped her on 10.3.1997. An investigation ensued and the appellant was medically examined. Wherein it
was opined by the doctor that she was habitual to sexual intercourse, however, a final opinion regarding
fresh intercourse would be given only after receipt of report from the Chemical Examiner.
► Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161, wherein she narrated the incident as
mentioned in the FIR, stating that she had been employed as a servant at the residence of one sister
Durgi for the past six years. Close to the residence of sister Durgi, Dr. D.R. Parmar and his son Ajay
Parmar were also residing.
► One day she was called by Ajay Parmar to his residence where she was raped by him and was
restrained from going out for a long period of time and kept indoors without provision of any food or
water. She then filed an FIR but police was not investigating properly. She then made her statement
recorded u/s 164.
► Prosecutrix mentioned it to be a false statement & no such offence was alleged to be committed.
► The Judicial Magistrate, Sheoganj, taking note of the statement given by the prosecrutix under Section
164 Cr.P.C., passed an order of not taking cognizance of the offences under
Sections 376 and 342 IPC.Aggrieved, the public prosecutor filed a revision before the Learned Sessions
Judge, Sirohi & the order was reversed, on 2 grounds: -
1. that a case under Sections 376 and 342 IPC was triable by the Sessions Court and the Magistrate,
therefore, had no jurisdiction to discharge/acquit the appellant on any ground whatsoever, as he was
bound to commit the case to the Sessions Court, which was the only competent court to deal with the
issue.
2. The alleged statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was not worth reliance as she
had not been produced before the Magistrate by the police.
► This court is of the opinion that the learned magistrate, whilst refusing to take cognizance on the
police report for a session trial offence, overstepped the jurisdiction & the learned sessions judge has
rightly set aside the said order of the learned magistrate.
► The revision petition hereby rejected. the triable court is directed to proceed with the trial
expeditiously.
► Appellant went to high court, where the decision of the sessions' court was upheld.
Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid judgment that when an offence is cognizable by the
Sessions court, the Magistrate cannot probe into the matter and discharge the accused. It is not
permissible for him to do so, even after considering the evidence on record, as he has no
jurisdiction to probe or look into the matter at all.
► The order of discharge is therefore, a nullity, being without jurisdiction.
► The scheme of the Code, particularly, the provisions of Sections 207 to 209 Cr.P.C., mandate the
Magistrate to commit the case to the Court of Sessions, when the charge-sheet is filed. ► A
conjoint reading of these provisions makes it crystal clear that the committal of a case exclusively
triable by the Court of Sessions, in a case instituted by the police is mandatory. ► The judgement
& order of the revisional court as well as High court is upheld. the sessions court is requested to
proceed strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously & take the case to its
logical conclusion without any further delay.

CHAPTER 7
Cases: Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam Cr. Appeal no. 1820 of 2019
(related to S. 228 CRPC)
◦ FACTS: The husband of the complainant-Gopal Saran
◦ About 06.00 pm went saying to prepare food as he is going outside to plough the field and shall return
by 09.00-10.00 pm
◦ Gopal did not return home.
◦ Family members tried searching for him. Next morning he was found in the tank of the house.
◦ The Apex Court in Bhawna Bai has held that there is no requirement in law to give reasons in an order
framing charge.
◦ The judgment deals with an order passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge at Mandleswar,
Madhya Pradesh under Section 228, which, without giving any reasons, held that there are sufficient
grounds to proceed against the accused.
◦ Apex court observed-
At the time of framing the charges, only prima facie case is to be seen; whether case is beyond
reasonable doubt, is not to be seen at this
stage. At the stage of framing the charge, the court has to see if there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. While
evaluating the materials, strict standard of proof is not required; only prima facie case against the
accused is to be seen.”
upon hearing the parties and considering the allegations in the charge-sheet, the learned Second
Additional Sessions Judge was of the
opinion that there were sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offence ...
The order dated 12-12-2018 framing the charges is not a detailed order. For framing the charges under
Section 228 CrPC, the Judge is not required to record detailed
reasons. …The impugned order cannot therefore be sustained and is liable to be set aside.”
The Apex Court itself has said, that “at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate
the material and documents on record” to see if a prima facie case is made out.
CHAPTER 8
1) Re Goriparthi Krishtamma 1929 Madras weekly notes 881
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Re Goriparthi Krishtamma 1929 Madras weekly
notes 881, (Waller and Cornish, JJ) had occasion to consider 'case and counter case' and they
made a suggestion that "a case and counter case arising out of the same affair should always, if
practicable, be tried by the same court and each party would represent themselves as having
been the innocent victims of the aggression of the other."
2) Krishna Pannadi vs. Emperor (AIR 1930 Madras 190):
The petitioner, Krishna Pannadi, was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment for
stabbing a man with a spear and six months' rigorous imprisonment concurrently for hurting
another man. In a related case where Pannadi was the complainant, it was argued that there
was no clear law regarding the procedure in counter cases.
The court noted that it is generally recognized that counter cases should be tried in quick
succession by the same judge to prevent conflicting judgments and ensure that all relevant facts
are considered. However, there are practical difficulties in implementing this rule.
In this case, the lower courts ignored this principle and tried one case before the other, leading
to a situation where the judgment in the first case discredited the second case. While the
appellate judge found no actual illegality in this procedure, it went against accepted practice
and may have prejudiced the accused.
The court ordered a retrial, emphasizing that the accused should have the opportunity to
present all their evidence. Additionally, it raised questions about why the accused, if he was on
duty, was carrying a spear.
The finding and sentence were cancelled, and the petitioner was ordered to be retried by a
different magistrate to ensure fairness in the proceedings. The petitioner was allowed to remain
on bail until the retrial was concluded.
3) Sudhir vs State (2001)2SCC688
In this case, two separate incidents occurred, resulting in two First Information Reports (FIRs)
being filed at a police station. One FIR, referred to as the "first case," involved 24 accused, while
the other FIR, termed the "second case," involved six accused. Both cases were investigated
together, and charges were framed against the accused under various sections of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC).The Sessions Court, after hearing preliminary arguments, found that one of the
cases did not involve offenses exclusively triable by a Sessions Court, while the other case did.
Therefore, the Sessions Judge framed charges in the first case but transferred the second case
to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial. The accused in the first case challenged the decision,
arguing that they should have been charged under Section 307 IPC and that the offense should
also have been included in the charges framed in the second case. However, their petition was
dismissed by the High Court. Meanwhile, the State of Madhya Pradesh filed a revision petition
challenging the Sessions Court's decision not to frame charges under Section 307 IPC in the
second case. This petition was also dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined
the practice of trying related cases, often termed "case and counter case" or "cross cases,"
together to prevent conflicting judgments and ensure fairness. The Court emphasized the need
for both cases to be tried by the same court and for judgments to be pronounced on the same
day. Regarding the specific legal issue in this case, the Court clarified that when one case
involves offenses exclusively triable by a Sessions Court and the other does not, the Sessions
Judge has discretion in deciding whether to transfer the second case to the Chief Judicial
Magistrate or try it in their own court. In this instance, the Sessions Judge erred in transferring
the second case and should have tried it along with the first case. As a result, the Supreme
Court allowed one of the appeals, set aside the order transferring the second case, and directed
the Sessions Court to try both cases in accordance with established procedures for related
cases. Overall, the case emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness and consistency in
the trial of related criminal cases.

CHAPTER 9
Abdul Karim v. State of Karnataka, (2000) 8 SCC710
 Veerappan, a notorious criminal operating in the border forest areas of Karnataka and
Tamil Nadu, kidnapped popular film actor Rajkumar and others in July 2000.
 He demanded various concessions from the governments of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu
in exchange for the hostages' release, including political and economic demands.
 Negotiations took place between Veerappan and government emissaries, resulting in
some concessions being agreed upon.
 Meanwhile, legal proceedings against Veerappan under the Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities Act (TADA) were ongoing, but the Special Public Prosecutor filed an application
to withdraw TADA charges against him, citing the absence of recent terrorist activity and
the need to maintain peace.
 The Special Court granted permission to withdraw TADA charges against Veerappan and
his associates, leading to their discharge.
 Similar withdrawals of TADA charges were sought and granted for another individual,
Radio Venkatesan, by the Tamil Nadu government and the Designated Court in Chennai.
 These actions stirred controversy and led to legal challenges, with the victims' families
and concerned parties opposing the withdrawal of TADA charges against Veerappan and
others, alleging that it amounted to capitulation to the criminals' demands.
 Bail was subsequently granted to the accused discharged of TADA charges, further
escalating the controversy.

The State of Tamil Nadu revoked the detention orders of four individuals, including
Sathyamoorthy, under the National Security Act (NSA) on August 14, 2000, due to the
 kidnapping of Kannada actor Dr. Rajkumar by sandalwood brigand Veerappan. This
decision aimed to prevent potential harm to Tamils in Karnataka. However, the legality of
these revocations was challenged in court. The court found that the withdrawal of
prosecution under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Special Public
Prosecutor was not based on sufficient evidence or in the public interest, leading to the
orders being set aside. Additionally, concerns were raised about the state's response to
Veerappan's demands, the lack of pursuit of Veerappan by authorities, and the failure to
ensure Rajkumar's safety. The court ultimately allowed the appeals, nullifying the
revocation orders and bail grants.
CHAPTER 11
Ajay Pandit @ Jagdish Dayabhai Patel v. State of Maharahtra, (2012) 8 SCC 43
The case involves Ajay Pandit, also known as Doctor Jagdish Patel, who was convicted and
sentenced to death by the Bombay High Court for double murder. In the first case, he convinced
Nilesh Patel's family that he could help Nilesh emigrate to America, taking money from them
and then causing Nilesh's disappearance. In the second case, he similarly promised better
prospects in America to Kaushikbhai and Jayashree Patel, taking a large sum of money from
them before Jayashree's murder in a hotel room.The prosecution relied on circumstantial
evidence and witness testimonies, including that of Nilesh's sister and Kaushikbhai, to establish
Patel's guilt. The witnesses provided detailed accounts of their interactions with Patel, his
promises, and the events leading up to the murders. Hotel staff also testified to Patel's presence
and actions on the days of the murders.The court found the witnesses' testimonies consistent
and credible, with no evidence presented to discredit them. The modus operandi in both cases
was similar, strengthening the case against Patel. The court upheld the conviction and death
sentence based on the evidence presented.
The prosecution presented strong evidence, including witness testimonies, medical reports, and
the accused's own statements. The High Court, considering the heinous nature of the crimes,
issued a notice to the accused to show cause why his sentence should not be enhanced to
death penalty. However, upon examining the records, it was found that the High Court failed to
properly follow the procedure outlined in Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
(Cr.P.C.) regarding hearing the accused on the question of sentence. The Court noted that the
purpose of this provision is to allow the accused to present any mitigating circumstances
relevant to the sentencing decision. The High Court merely recorded the accused's denial of
guilt without making a genuine effort to elicit relevant information. Therefore, the Supreme
Court set aside the death sentence and remitted the matter to the High Court to properly follow
the procedure under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. while considering the sentencing. The conviction,
however, was upheld.