Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007

Posted on April 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This judgment from a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Dalveer Bhandari has enumerated some of the illustrations of mental cruelty citing Judgments of England, America, Canada and Australia.

Intro

The appellant and the respondent are senior officials of the Indian Administrative Service, The respondent was a divorcee and had a female child from her first marriage. The custody of the said child was given to her by the District Court of Patna where the respondent had obtained a decree of divorce against her first husband, Debashish Gupta, who was also an I.A.S. officer. The respondent’s first husband, Debashish Gupta filed a belated appeal against the decree of divorce obtained by her from the District Court of Patna. Therefore, during the pendency of the appeal, she literally persuaded the appellant to agree to the marriage immediately so that the appeal of Debashish Gupta may become infructuous.

The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.12.1984.

… In these circumstances, the appellant has prayed that it would not be possible to continue the marriage with the respondent and he eventually filed a suit for the grant of divorce. In the suit for divorce filed by the appellant in Alipur, Calcutta, the respondent filed her written statement and denied the averments. The learned Additional District Judge came to the finding that the appellant has succeeded in proving the case of mental cruelty against the respondent, therefore, the decree was granted by the order dated 19.12.1996 and the marriage between the parties was dissolved.

The Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment dated 20.5.2003 reversed the judgment of the Additional District Judge on the ground that the appellant has not been able to prove the allegation of mental cruelty.

Key Points

Such a vital decision cannot be taken unilaterally after marriage by the respondent and if taken unilaterally, it may amount to mental cruelty to the appellant.

The finding of the High Court that the appellant started living with the respondent amounted to condonation of the act of cruelty is unsustainable in law.

The finding of the High Court that the respondent’s refusal to cook food for the appellant could not amount to mental cruelty as she had to go to office, is not sustainable….. The question was not of cooking food, but wife’s cooking food only for herself and not for the husband would be a clear instance of causing annoyance which may lead to mental cruelty.

The High Court’s finding that the husband and wife might be sleeping in separate rooms did not lead to a conclusion that they did not cohabit and to justify this by saying that the respondent was highly educated and holding a high post was entirely unsustainable. Once the respondent accepted to become the wife of the appellant, she had to respect the marital bond and discharge obligations of marital life.

During illness, particularly in a nuclear family, the husband normally looks after and supports his wife and similarly, he would expect the same from her. The respondent’s total indifference and neglect of the appellant during his illness would certainly lead to great annoyance leading to mental cruelty.

The credibility of the witness does not depend upon his financial standing or social status only. A witness which is natural and truthful should be accepted irrespective of his/her financial standing or social status.

… the appellant and the respondent have been living separately for more than sixteen and half years (since 27.8.1990). The entire substratum of the marriage has already disappeared. During this long period, the parties did not spend a single minute together. The appellant had undergone bye-pass surgery even then the respondent did not bother to enquire about his health even on telephone. Now the parties have no feelings and emotions towards each other.

Mental Cruelty Guidelines

No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of ‘mental cruelty’. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.

(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.

(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.

(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.

(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.

(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.

(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.

(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.

(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.

(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.

(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.

(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.

Samar_Ghosh_vs_Jaya_Ghosh_on_26_March,_2007

Citations : [2007 SCC 4 511], [2007 SUPREME 3 26], [2007 JT 5 569], [2007 CTC 3 464], [2007 BLJR 2 1047], [2007 RCR CIVIL 2 595], [2007 RAJ 2 177], [2007 ALD SC 4 11], [2007 ALL SCR 0 881], [2007 SCALE 5 1], [2007 SCC 4 411], [2007 SLJ SC 2 705], [2007 ALT 3 62], [2007 DMC 1 597], [2007 SCJ 3 253], [2007 WBLR 3 525], [2007 GHJ 16 204], [2007 KERLT 2 55], [2007 RAJLW 2 1357], [2007 AWC 5 4820], [2007 CLT 2 72], [2007 JCIVC 2 1028], [2007 SLT 4 76], [2007 AIOL 339], [2007 BOMCR SC 6 834], [2007 SCR 4 428], [2007 GUJ LR 2 1520], [2007 MADLJ 2 1185]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/766894/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae45e4b01497114135d2

The index page is here.

Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs The District Judge Dehradun & Ors on 27 August, 1997

Posted on April 20, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Read this judgment from Supreme Court of India which is important in more than one ways.

Lower Courts are impleaded as respondents:

It is not proper or even justified on the part of the appellant to implead the courts as respondents and respondents 1 and 2 are, therefore, struck off from the record of this appeal.

It does appear to us from the affidavit of the husband that it conceals more than what it tells of his income and other assets. Attempt has been made to conceal his true income and that leads us to draw an adverse inference against the husband about his income that it is much more than what is being disclosed to us.

Considering the diverse claims made by the parties one inflating the income and the other suppressing an element of conjecture and guess work does enter for arriving at the income of the husband. It cannot be done by any mathematical precision.

Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and those; he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. Amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate.

Date from which Interim maintenance can be claimed:

If wife has no source of income it is the obligation of the husband to maintain her and also children of the marriage on the basis of the provision contained in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Her right to claim maintenance fructifies on the date of the filing of the petition for divorce under the Act.
The court has discretion in the matter as to from which date maintenance under Section 24 of the Act should be granted.

Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal vs The District Judge Dehradun & Ors on 27 August, 1997

Karam Chand Ganga Prasad And Anr. Vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 October, 1970

Posted on April 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is the landmark Supreme Court judgement reiterating that ‘Decisions of Civil Courts are binding on the Criminal Courts‘

Karam Chand Ganga Prasad And Anr. Vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 October, 1970

Rajesh Sharma and Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 27 July, 2017

Posted on April 14, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

UPDATE 1:

SC Modifies The Earlier Directions Issued To Prevent Misuse Of 498A IPC, Says No To ‘Welfare Committees’

https://www.livelaw.in/breaking-sc-modifies-the-earlier-directions-issued-to-prevent-misuse-of-498a-ipc-says-no-to-welfare-committees/

UPDATE 2:

Few directions given in this judgment are held to be erroneous. Here is the new article.

https://www.livelaw.in/sec-498a-ipc-only-hc-can-quash-cases-on-settlement-a-third-agency-created-by-courts-cant-exercise-statutory-functionssc/

UPDATE 3:

In Shivangi Bansal Vs Sahib Bansal on 22 Jul 2025, Division Bench of Apex Court restored the Family Welfare Committees.

The detailed order is available here.

Guidelines issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court:

After considering the submissions of ASG A.S. Nadkarni, and Senior Advocate V. Giri, the Supreme Court has issued the following directions;

Part 1.

(a) In every district one or more Family Welfare Committees be constituted by the District Legal Services Authorities preferably comprising of three members. The constitution and working of such committees may be reviewed from time to time and at least once in a year by the District and Sessions Judge of the district who is also the Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority.

(b) The Committees may be constituted out of para legal volunteers/social workers/retired persons/wives of working officers/other citizens who may be found suitable and willing.
(c) The Committee members will not be called as witnesses.
(d) Every complaint under Section 498A received by the police or the Magistrate be referred to and looked into by such committee. Such committee may have interaction with the parties personally or by means of telephone or any other mode of communication including electronic communication.
(e) Report of such committee be given to the Authority by whom the complaint is referred to it latest within one month from the date of receipt of complaint.
(f) The committee may give its brief report about the factual aspects and its opinion in the matter.
(g) Till report of the committee is received, no arrest should normally be effected.
(h) The report may be then considered by the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate on its own merit.
(i) Members of the committee may be given such basic minimum training as may be considered necessary by the Legal Services Authority from time to time.
(j) The Members of the committee may be given such honorarium as may be considered viable.
(k) It will be open to the District and Sessions Judge to utilize the cost fund wherever considered necessary and proper.

Part 2.

Complaints under Section 498A and other connected offences may be investigated only by a designated Investigating Officer of the area. Such designations may be made within one month from today. Such designated officer may be required to undergo training for such duration (not less than one week) as may be considered appropriate. The training may be completed within four months from today;

Part 3.

In cases where a settlement is reached, it will be open to the District and Sessions Judge or any other senior Judicial Officer nominated by him in the district to dispose of the proceedings including closing of the criminal case if dispute primarily relates to matrimonial discord;

Part 4.

If a bail application is filed with at least one clear day’s notice to the Public Prosecutor/complainant, the same may be decided as far as possible on the same day. Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can otherwise be protected. Needless to say that in dealing with bail matters, individual roles, prima facie truth of the allegations, requirement of further arrest/ custody and interest of justice must be carefully weighed;

Part 5.
In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a routine;

Part 6.

It will be open to the District Judge or a designated senior judicial officer nominated by the District Judge to club all connected cases between the parties arising out of matrimonial disputes so that a holistic view is taken by the Court to whom all such cases are entrusted;

Part 7.

Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be required and the trial court ought to grant exemption from personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing without adversely affecting progress of the trial.

Part 8. These directions will not apply to the offences involving tangible physical injuries or death.

Read the complete judgment here.

Rajesh Sharma & ors. Vs State of UP and Anr on 27 July, 2017

Citations: [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 821], [2017 AIR SC 3869], [2017 AJR 4 408], [2017 ALLMR CRI 3526], [2017 ALLCC 100 927], [2017 ACR 2 2225], [2017 ALT CRL AP 2 393], [2017 ALD CRL SC 2 568], [2017 BOMCR CRI 3 677], [2017 CGLJ 3 573], [2017 CCR SC 3 211], [2017 CTC 4 667], [2017 DMCSC 2 747], [2017 GLH 2 818], [2017 GLR 3 2430], [2017 ILR KER 3 425], [2017 JLJR 3 180], [2017 JCC 3 1919], [2017 KHC 4 163], [2017 KLJ 3 861], [2017 MLJ CRL 3 602], [2017 PLJR 3 240], [2017 RLW SC 3 2266], [2017 RCR CRIMINAL 3 836], [2017 SCALE 8 313], [2017 SCJ 7 94], [2017 UC 3 1601], [2017 WLN SC 3 81], [2018 SCC 10 472], [2019 SCC CRI 1 3012017 SCR 9 529], [2017 GUJ LR 3 2430], [2017 GUJ LH 2 818], [2017 AIC 177 224], [2017 CRIMES 3 268], [2017 ECRN 3 381], [2018 CRI LJ 3593

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182220573/

News Article:

http://www.livelaw.in/breaking-misuse-of-s-498a-sc-directs-to-form-family-welfare-committees-to-examine-each-cases-no-arrests-before-committees-report-read-new-guidelines/

Satish Mehra Vs Delhi Administration & Anr on 31 July, 1996

Posted on April 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another SC Judgment discharging the accused u/s 227 of Cr.P.C, as there is no ground to proceed to Trial under IPC 498A.

But when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. We are under heavy pressure of work-load. If the Sessions Judge is almost certain that the trial would only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time it is advisable to truncate or ship the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code itself.

Similar situation arise under Section 239 of the Code (which deals with trial of warrant cases on police report). In that situation the Magistrate has to afford the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard besides considering the police report and the documents sent therewith. At these two State the Code enjoins on the Court to give audience to the accused for deciding whether it is necessary to proceed to the next State. It is a matter of exercise of judicial mind. There is nothing in the code which shrinks the scope of such audience to oral arguments. If the accused succeeds in producing any reliable material at that stage which might fatally affect even the very sustainability of the case, it is unjust to suggest that no such material shall be looked into by the Court at that stage. Here the “ground” may be any valid ground including insufficiency of evidence to prove charge.

Sh. Satish Mehra vs Delhi Administration & Anr on 31 July, 1996

Citations: [1

State of Karnataka Vs L. Muniswamy and Ors on 3 March, 1977

Posted on April 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Landmark Judgment on application of the Inherent powers of High Court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C to Quash a proceeding as there is inadequate material to sustain the charge of prosecution.

There is no material on the record on which any tribunal could reasonably convict them for any offence connected with the assault on the complainant. This is one of these cases in which a charge of conspiracy is hit upon for the mere reason that evidence of direct involvement of the accused is lacking.
The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a Salutary public purpose which is that a Court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice.

State Of Karnataka vs L. Muniswamy & Ors on 3 March, 1977

Citations: [AIR 1977 SC 1489], [1977 Cri LJ 1125 (SC)], [(1977) 2 SCC 699], [1977 KARLJ 2 483], [1977 SCC 2 699], [1977 SCR 3 113], [1977 CAR 143], [1977 CRLR 188], [1977 MLJ CRI 1 428], [1977 SCC CR 0 404], [1977 CRILR 0 188], [1977 AIR SC 1498], [1978 CLR 0 39], [1977 SCC CRI 0 404]

Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C.

Posted on April 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a list of the Judgments where the accused prayed for discharge u/s 227 Cr.P.C

State Of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh on 2 August, 1977
Union of India Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr on 6 Nov 1978 (Landmark Judgment: How to deal with a Discharge petition?)
Sh. Satish Mehra Vs Delhi Administration & Anr on 31 July, 1996
Om Wati and Anr Vs State Thro Delhi Admn and Ors on 19 March 2001 (Landmark Judgment: As there is Prima facie case against Accused, discharging them is not correct)
Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 January, 2002 (No grave suspicion)
State Of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004 (SC: No evidence from Defence/Accused during Charge Framing/Discharge Stage)
P.Vijayan Vs State of Kerala and Anr on 27 January, 2010 (No grave suspicion)
Sajjan Kumar Vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010 (If the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce proves the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.)
CBI, Hyderabad Vs K. Narayana Rao on 21 September, 2012
Rajiv Thapar & Ors Vs Madan Lal Kapoor on 23 January, 2013 [Landmark judgment from Justice J.S.Khehar for guidelines to discharge an accused under section 227 of CrPC]
L. Krishna Reddy Vs State on 24 October 2013 [Discharge of parents u/s 227 by HC was upheld by SC]
Ramnaresh & Ors Vs State of M.P. on 14 June, 2016 [During Charge framing, Grave Suspicion Vs Suspicion, based on Prafulla Kumar Samal above]
Sarva Mangala Vs Station House Officer on 4 Jan 2018 [All documents submitted u/s 173(2) have to be perused to see if there is any prima facie case]
Asim Shariff Vs National Investigation Agency on 01 July 2019
M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs CBI Bengaluru on 7 January 2020 [Governing principles regarding permissibility of defence of accused or documents produced by him, summarized]
Bishop Franco Mulakkal Vs State of Kerala on 07 July 2020 [Discharge dismissal was challenged in Revision at Kerala High Court; Revision got dismissed]
Vishnu Kumar Shukla and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 28 Nov 2023 [SC: Court can look into the unimpeachable material against the allegations in the charge sheet]

Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 239 are here. Index of Quash judgments u/s 482 are here.

MASTER SITEMAP here.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) – Discharge Under Section 227 CrPC

Section 227 CrPC allows a court to discharge an accused person if, after examining the case records and hearing both sides, it finds no sufficient ground to proceed with the trial. In such cases, the judge must record reasons and release the accused from the proceedings.

Discharge under Section 227 occurs before the framing of charges in sessions cases. If the court finds that the prosecution materials do not establish a prima facie case, the accused may be discharged instead of being subjected to a full criminal trial.

Courts generally evaluate:

The police report and charge sheet
Documents submitted during investigation
Arguments of both the prosecution and the accused
Whether the facts alleged constitute the ingredients of the offence

If the material on record does not show sufficient grounds for trial, discharge may be granted.

No. Discharge does not amount to a finding of innocence. It simply means that the court found insufficient material to proceed with the trial at that stage. A final determination of guilt or innocence happens only after a full trial leading to acquittal or conviction.

The key differences are:

Discharge: Occurs before framing of charges due to lack of sufficient evidence.
Acquittal: Occurs after a full trial when the court concludes the accused is not guilty.

An acquittal is a final judgment, whereas discharge only terminates proceedings at a preliminary stage.

No. At the discharge stage, courts only conduct a prima facie assessment of the material on record. They do not undertake a detailed examination of evidence or determine guilt. If there is sufficient suspicion or material supporting the offence, the case proceeds to trial.

The accused person in a criminal case may file a discharge application through counsel. The court then considers the application after hearing both the prosecution and the defence.

If the court finds sufficient grounds to proceed, it will reject the discharge application and move to the next stage of the criminal process—framing of charges under Section 228 CrPC.

Yes. Both the accused and the prosecution can challenge discharge orders before a higher court through revision or appeal, depending on the circumstances and applicable provisions.

The primary objective of Section 227 is to prevent unnecessary criminal trials where the evidence is insufficient. It acts as an important safeguard to protect individuals from frivolous or baseless prosecutions and ensures fairness in criminal proceedings.

State Of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh on 2 August, 1977

Posted on April 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is the Judgment of Supreme Court clearly calling out the principle to be followed u/s 227 of Cr.P.C

“the test is whether there is a sufficient ground for proceeding and not, whether there is a sufficient ground for conviction”

State Of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh on 2 August, 1977

Citations: [2

Parbatbhai Aahir and Ors Vs State Of Gujarat and Anr on 4 October, 2017

Posted on April 7, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Read the broad principles High courts should consider for quashing of FIRs under Section 482 CrPC in this Judgment of Supreme Court.

IMPORTANT NOTE: If the FIR Quash is based on Jurisdiction ground, please note that there are Supreme Court and High Court judgments that mandate to transfer the FIR to the respective Police Station where there is jurisdiction for the case. Quash will not happen in such cases, under Jurisdiction ground alone. Find more grounds.

Broad Principles

(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;
(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;
(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;
(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;
(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;
(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;
(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;
(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and
(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.

Principles for quashing of FIRs under Section 482 CrPC 40266_2016_Judgement_04-Oct-2017

Citations : [2017 SCC 9 641], [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1189], [2017 AIR SC 4843], [2017 CTC 6 213], [2017 ALLMR CRI 4438], [2017 ACR 3 2714], [2017 BOMCR CRI 4 372], [2017 ILR KER 4 169], [2017 JLJR 4 191], [2017 KHC 5 192], [2017 PLJR 4 207], [2017 RCR CRIMINAL 4 523], [2017 SCALE 12 187], [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1189], [2017 AIR SC 4843]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7293093/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/59d91ddece686e237b6a8717

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/parbatbhai-aahir-parbatbhai-bhimsinhbhai-karmur-and-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-and-anr

Discharge Judgments u/s 239 Cr.P.C.

Posted on April 7, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a list of the Judgments where the accused are discharged u/s 239 Cr.P.C

Supdt. S. Remembrancer of legal affairs W.B. Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja- AIR 1989 SC 52
Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad Vs. Dilip N. Chartia 1989 (1) SCC 715
State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Som Nath Thapa and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1744
State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni AIR 2000 SC 2583
Kanti Bhadra Shah and Anr Vs State of West Bengal on 5 January 2000 (Charge-framing itself is a judicial order which implies Magistrate applied judicial mind)
Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand And Ors. on 19 May, 2003 (Appeal petition by Knife on not framing changes on relatives is dismissed)
State Of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004 (SC: No evidence from Defence/Accused during Charge Framing/Discharge Stage)
Ajoy Kumar Ghose Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 18 March, 2009 (Discharge and Charge Framing procedure explained)
B.S.Neelakanta and Anr Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 04 December 2013 (AP HC: Dismissal of Discharge is set aside)
Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin Vs Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy on 7 December, 2017 (SC: Defence can satisfy Court to seek documents of Sterling/Unimpeachable quality from IO/Prosecution that were not sent to Trial Court u/s 173 CrPC)
C Krishna Priya Vs State of AP on 14 September 2018 (TS HC: No specific allegations, Dismissal of Discharge is set aside)
CBI Vs Ram Swaroop Chandel and Ors on 30 Sep 2020 (Delhi HC: If the prosecution witnesses presumed to be true, without any cross examination, still conviction cannot be awarded to the accused, then deserves for discharge)
Vishnu Kumar Shukla and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 28 Nov 2023 [SC: Court can look into the unimpeachable material against the allegations in the charge sheet]

Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 are here. Index of Quash judgments u/s 482 are here.

MASTER SITEMAP here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification

Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007

Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs The District Judge Dehradun & Ors on 27 August, 1997

Karam Chand Ganga Prasad And Anr. Vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 October, 1970

Rajesh Sharma and Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 27 July, 2017

Satish Mehra Vs Delhi Administration & Anr on 31 July, 1996

State of Karnataka Vs L. Muniswamy and Ors on 3 March, 1977

Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) – Discharge Under Section 227 CrPC

State Of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh on 2 August, 1977

Parbatbhai Aahir and Ors Vs State Of Gujarat and Anr on 4 October, 2017

Discharge Judgments u/s 239 Cr.P.C.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) – Discharge Under Section 227 CrPC

1. What is discharge under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)?+

2. At what stage can an accused seek discharge under Section 227 CrPC?+

3. What factors do courts consider while deciding a discharge application?+

4. Does discharge mean the accused is innocent?+

5. What is the difference between discharge and acquittal?+

6. Can the court evaluate evidence in detail at the discharge stage?+

7. Who can file a discharge application under Section 227 CrPC?+

8. What happens if the discharge application is rejected?+

9. Can a discharge order be challenged?+

10. What is the purpose of Section 227 CrPC?+