S.154--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 and 34--FIR--Delay in lodging--Police Station from place of occurrence or residential house where dead body was brought back not more than 2 furlongs--Complainant had access to a car in which injured was first taken to civil hospital and then to hospital to Amritsar and when he died his dead body was brought back during night--During entire night occurrence was neither disclosed to police nor to any Panchayat member--Co-villagers cited to witness in disclosure statements and recoveries of weapons of offence were in village--In such circumstances, conduct of witnesses in lodging FIR after such a delay is quite unnatural which raises legitimate inference that prosecution version is highly doubtful--Appellant acquitted.; Mehar Singh & Ors. v State of Punjab,; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 704
S.439(2)--Bail--Cancellation of Bail--High Court and also the Court of Session is empowered to order the arrest of a person released on bail for committing him to custody--Power under Section 439(2) is unfettered, though such power has to be exercised judiciously--It is not necessary that the power under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. can only be exercised at the instance of the State in case instituted by the State--Complainant is entitled to move such an application he being an aggrieved person and also an important witness in the case.; Jai Krishan v. State of Punjab and Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 693
S.439(2)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302/307 read with Section 34--Arms Act, 1959, S.25, 27, 24, 54 & 59--Bail--Cancellation of bail--Application for--Locus Standi--Complainant is entitled to move application for cancellation of bail being an aggrieved person and important witness in case.; Jai Krishan v. State of Punjab and Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 693
S.439(2)--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302/307 read with Section 34--Bail--Cancellation of bail--Bail granted on medical report--No material produced that after being granted bail accused is under continuous treatment--During period of 2006-07 there was not serious ailment with petitioner--In July 2007, Aliment of epilepsy was inserted in diagnosis and some tablets were prescribed--There is tempering in register--Fact that bail is procured with fraud is sufficient to recall order of bail--Bail granted to accused by playing fraud cancelled.; Jai Krishan v. State of Punjab and Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 693
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406 and 498-A--Quashing of FIR--Abetment to suicide--Compromise between the parties--Accepted--Once the matter has been compromised no useful purpose shall be served, by proceeding with prosecution, as that would amount to sheer wastage of the time of the Court; harassment to the parties; and abuse of the process of Court.; Pawan Kumar @ Pappu & Ors. v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 672
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.409, 418, 420, 468, 477-A r/w Section 34 and 120-B--Cheating--Complaint--Summoning order--Quashing of--Charging of alleged higher price of the goods supplied; invocation of the bank guarantee, for the recovery of the amount, allegedly due to the SAIL, against the complainant firms; and non-giving of rebate, to the complainant firms, on the goods supplied, by the SAIL, did not amount to deceiving the complainant firms, nor did it amount to the commission of offence of cheating--Allegations, contained in the complaint also, in any way, does not constitute the dishonest misappropriation of any money, by the SAIL--All these matters basically constituted civil dispute, between the parties, and civil suits, are already pending between them--None of the allegations, contained in the complaint, constituted a criminal offence--The complainant firms, converted a dispute of civil nature, into a dispute of criminal nature, so as to put pressure, upon the SAIL, and its officers, who could not be held to be liable vicariously, as per the provisions of the IPC, to come to the terms--The summoning orders and the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are liable to be quashed.; Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 663
S.482--Inherent powers--
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;
(ii) where the allegations, in the first information report, or complaint taken at their face value, and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.; Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 663
S.482--Inherent powers--Exercise of--
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. ; Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 663
