#CrPC 482

The Calcutta High Court set aside the criminal complaint, holding that without a specific allegation that a director was ‘in charge of and responsible for the company’s business’ at the time of the offence, Section 141 cannot be invoked. This narrows vicarious liability for directors in cheque-dishonour cases, limiting prosecution to those expressly shown to control the business.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that a conviction recorded after the alleged offence cannot be counted as a prior conviction under Section 31 of the NDPS Act, so enhanced punishment cannot be imposed. Only convictions existing before the offence date qualify, impacting NDPS prosecutions with multiple cases.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed trial courts to conclude preliminary proceedings on unregistered private complaints within two months, reinforcing that undue delay at this stage violates the right to speedy justice under Article 21. This ruling binds magistrates nationwide to avoid indefinite adjournments and ensures complainants are not left in legal limbo.

The Allahabad High Court quashed a non-bailable warrant issued against an accused who was physically unable to appear due to judicial custody in Bihar, ruling that such absence cannot be treated as wilful evasion. This reinforces that procedural fairness under Section 482 requires courts to distinguish between genuine impossibility and deliberate non-appearance, protecting accused persons caught in overlapping legal proceedings across states.

Punjab & Haryana High Court invokes inherent powers under CrPC Section 482 to quash FIR under BNS Sections 79 and 352, emphasizing that voluntary compromise can override non-compoundable status to prevent abuse of process. The ruling reaffirms that inherent jurisdiction is not limited to matrimonial disputes and extends to private offences where justice demands.

Allahabad HC dismisses a quashing petition, holding that courts cannot conduct a mini-trial or demand corroborative evidence at the summoning stage under CrPC 482. The ruling reaffirms that mere existence of a prima facie case-even with factual discrepancies-is sufficient for cognizance, protecting accused from premature judicial scrutiny while ensuring procedural fairness.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court invoked Section 482 CrPC to reduce a 20% compensation deposit to 12% for an accused facing financial hardship, citing Jamboo Bhandari precedent. The ruling reinforces that courts may modify procedural conditions in exceptional cases, ensuring access to justice for economically disadvantaged litigants.