web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: CrPC 482 – Saving of inherent powers of High Court

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]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/548497/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abc9e4b014971140d547

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes No Material To Sustain Charge Quash State of Karnataka Vs L. Muniswamy and Ors | Leave a comment

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

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision CrPC 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Parbatbhai Aahir and Ors Vs State Of Gujarat and Anr Quash Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

State Of A.P Vs M. Madhusudhan Rao on 24 October, 2008

Posted on April 7, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This Judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court talks about the importance of prompt lodging of the First Information Report and where not done so, the delay in lodging the complaint should be satisfactorily explained.

From Para 18,

Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the First Information Report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the First Information Report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained.

And… from Para 19,

No explanation worth the name for delay in filing the complaint with the police has come on record. We are of the opinion that this circumstance raises considerable doubt regarding the genuineness of the complaint and the veracity of the evidence of the complainant (PW-1) and her father (PW-3), rendering it unsafe to base the conviction of the respondent upon it. Resultantly, when the substratum of the evidence given by the complainant (PW-1) is found to be unreliable, the prosecution case has to be rejected in its entirety.

State Of A.P vs M. Madhusudhan Rao on 24 October, 2008

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1273596/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd30f607dba63d7e6b53e

Citation: [(2008) 15 SCC 582], [(2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1123], [2008 (14) SCALE 118]


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court Delay or Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint State Of A.P Vs M. Madhusudhan Rao | Leave a comment

Y.Abraham Ajith & Ors Vs Inspector Of Police, Chennai & Anr on 17 August, 2004

Posted on April 7, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is the Judgment that emphasizes on Jurisdiction applicable to a case.

Operative Text of Judgement:

“It is settled law that cause of action consists of bundle of facts, which give cause to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a court of law. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the allegedly affected party a right to claim relief against the opponent. It must include some act done by the latter since in the absence of such an act no cause of action would possibly accrue or would arise.”

Y. Abraham Ajith sc-chennai-jurisdiction

 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court CrPC 482 – Criminal Proceeding Quashed No Territorial Jurisdiction Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors Vs Inspector Of Police Chennai and Anr | Leave a comment

Supreme Court and High Court Judgments to cite in Discharge (u/s 227 or 239) or Quash petition (u/s 482)

Posted on April 6, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a list the Supreme Court of India judgments applicable to various legal grounds to go for Discharge u/s 227 or 239 or 245 and Quash u/s 482.

Included few High Court judgments too for reference. Read the individual judgments to find the operative text of the respective judgments.

There are quite a few legal grounds on the basis of which a case can be discharged at Magistrate/Sessions Court or Quashed (High Court and Supreme Court).

Note1: Read State Of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004 to understand that during Quash proceedings at High Court, Evidence of Sterling/Unimpeachable Quality from Defence/Accused can be adduced to dismantle the case of Prosecution at Trial Court.)

Note2: Second 482 CrPC petition is maintainable as per Landmark judgment in ‘Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal Vs Mohan Singh and Ors on 08 Oct 1974‘.

Note3: A Petition under section 482 CrPC is maintainable even when a Revision is available under 397/401 CrPC says, ‘Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 17 Dec 2008‘. This view is re-affirmed by a 3-Judge bench of Supreme Court in, Prabhu Chawla Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 05 Sep 2016.

Note4: Read recent landmark decision of a Full bench of the Apex Court on when to/not to Quash a FIR/case in ‘Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors‘ [2021 SCC ONLINE SC 315]

Note4: In recent landmark judgment Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr on 02 Sep 2025, Supreme Court issued 4-steps test/procedure to be followed by High Courts, in alleged False Rape cases.

Note: If you want to read this thread from beginning, go here.

No Jurisdiction Judgments

  1. Satvinder Kaur vs State (Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 5 October, 1999 (1999) 8 SCC 728
  2. Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors Vs Inspector Of Police, Chennai & Anr on 17 August, 2004
  3. Manish Ratan And Others Vs State Of M.P And Another on 01 Nov 2006
  4. Sonu and others Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another on 10 October, 2007
  5. Bhura Ram And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 2 April, 2008
  6. Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 17 October, 2012 (Includes delay in complaint, vague allegations)
  7. Sivangala Thandi Deepak & Others Vs The State of A.P. on 11 July 2014
  8. Amarendu Jyoti And Others vs. State Of Chhattisgarh And Others on 4 Aug, 2014
  9. Sudhir Mansinghka Vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 4 August, 2015
  10. Amit Kumar Yadav And Others vs State Of Telangana on 11 September, 2015 (AP High Court judgment; Includes delay in complaint, perjury)
  11. G.Ramamoorthy Vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2017
  12. Manoj Vishwakarma & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 12 September, 2017
  13. Vishnu Mohan Jha & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 21 November, 2017
  14. Yadwinder Singh & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others on 10 August, 2018
  15. Rupali Devi Vs State of UP and Ors on 09 April, 2019 (Bad law: No territorial Jurisdiction is applicable in 498A IPC cases); Interestingly, no other new/overruling judgment till date.

 

Vague and General and omnibus Allegations

  1. MS Pepsi Foods Ltd and Anr Vs Spl JM and Ors on 4 November, 1997 (Complaint Case)
  2. Ashok Chaturvedi and Ors Vs Shitul H Chanchani and Anr on 13 August, 1998 (Complaint Case)
  3. B.S. Joshi & Ors Vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003 (High Courts can quash a FIR or non-compoundable cases also not listed under CrPC 320)
  4. Neelu Chopra and Anr Vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009
  5. Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010
  6. Joseph Salvaraj A Vs State of Gujarat and Ors on 4 Jul 2011 [SC: Quash can be done even after charge sheet is filed by Police]
  7. Gian Singh Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012 (Scenarios when a criminal proceeding can be quashed)
  8. Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs. Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and others on 25 September, 2012
  9. Dipakbhai Ratilal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2014
  10. Sandeep Singh Bais Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2017
  11. Nafisa Anjum Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 26 Sep 2018 [Chattisgarh HC: DV on relatives quashed who do not have shared household]
  12. Korimerla Videesha Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 12 October, 2018 (AP High Court)
  13. Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. Anr on 03 Apr 2019 (Telangana High Court: No evidence of Dowry Transaction)
  14. Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022 (Conviction of 498A IPC set aside due to settlement; Cites BS Joshi caselaw)
  15. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar on 08 Feb 2022 (498A IPC quashed due to General and Omnibus allegations)
  16. Krishnanand Mishra and Anr Vs State of Jharkhand on 09 Aug 2023 [Jharkhand HC: Misuse of Section 498A IPC; General and Omnibus allegations]
  17. Rajan and Anr Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr on 17 Aug 2023 [Package of 5 cases laid on parents of husband]
  18. Abhishek Gour Vs State of MP on 31 Aug 2023 [SC: Quash can be done even after charge sheet is filed by Police]
  19. Rakesh Rajput and Anr Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 31 Oct 2023 [Jharkhand HC: Misuse of Section 498A IPC; General and Omnibus allegations]
  20. Mamta Shailesh Chandra Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors on 29 Jan 2024 [SC: Quash can be done even after charge sheet is filed by Police]
  21. Mainoddin Vs State of Karnataka on 02 Feb 2024 [Relied on Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar]
  22. Mamida Anil Kumar Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 05 Feb 2024 [Relying on Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar, Apex Court trashed the nonsensical decision of AP High Court]
  23. Rajesh Aggarwal and Anr Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 12 Mar 2024 [DHC: Relied on Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar]
  24. Mathi Vijaya Lakshmi and Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 03 May 2024 [TelHC: Relied on Category 1 of Bhajan lal and Preethi Gupta]
  25. CB Prakash and Anr Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 04 Jun 2024 [KarHC: Relied on Kahkashan Kausar]
  26. Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and Anr Vs State of Gujarat and Ors on 28 Aug 2024 [SC: FIR can be quashed even after filing of CS]
  27. Dara Lakshmi Narayana and 6 Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 10 Dec 2024 [SC: Counterblast case]
  28. Ghanshyam Soni Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 04 Jun 2025 [DHC: Making generic and ambiguous allegations is abuse of process of law]
  29. Raj Kamal Yadav and Anr Vs Manju Yadav and Other on 7 Aug 2025 [DHC: Making generic and ambiguous allegations against distant relatives is abuse of process of law]
  30. Tushar Sampat Mane and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra on 8 Aug 2025 [BomHC : holding allegations were vague, exaggerated, and not grave enough to constitute cruelty under IPC.]
  31. Sanjay D Jain and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 26 Sep 2025 [SC: Making generic and ambiguous allegations is abuse of process of law, Vague and general allegations cannot lead to forming of a prima facie case]
  32. Asha G Vs State of Karnataka on 6 Jan 2026 [KarHC : Neighbours cannot be prosecuted under Section 498A IPC]
  33. Asish Bera & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr on 30 Jan 2026 [CalHC : Quashed due to lack of material and duplicate complaints.]
  34. Dr.Sushil Kumar Purbey and Anr Vs The State of Bihar and Ors on 9 Mar 2026 [SC :Quashed criminal proceedings against in-laws, held that identical omnibus allegations cannot justify differential treatment]
  35. Charul Shukla Vs State of UP and Ors on 25 Mar 2026 [SC : FIR against in-laws quashed due to vague allegations, lack of evidence, and unexplained delay.]
  36. Sivaraman Nair and Ors Vs State of Kerala and Anr on 24 Apr 2026 [SC : Quashes criminal proceedings against in-laws, emphasising absence of specific allegations and misuse of criminal law in matrimonial disputes.]

 

Allegations do not attract provisions of Sections in FIR

  1. R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab 25 March, 1960
  2. Dr.N.G.Dastane Vs. Mrs.S.Dastane on 19 March, 1975
  3. State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy AIR 1977 SC 1489 [Inadequate material to sustain the charge of prosecution]
  4. Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare v State of Maharashtra & Ors 1990 (2) RCR 18
  5. State Of Haryana Vs Ch Bhajan Lal on 21 November, 1990 [A set of subsequent case laws arose from this landmark judgment]
  6. Richhpal Kaur v. State of Haryana and Anr. 1991 (2)
  7. V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat on 19 November, 1993 AIR 1994 SC 710
  8. State of H.P.V Nikku Ram & Ors 1995 (6) SCC 219
  9. Satish Mehra Vs Delhi Administration and Anr on 31 July 1996
  10. Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddy AIR 1998 SC 121
  11. Mohd. Hoshan v. State of A.P.; (2002) 7 SCC 414
  12. Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2078
  13. Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand And Ors. on 19 May, 2003 (Delhi High Court)
  14. Manju Ram Kalita vs State Of Assam on 29 May, 2009 (Conviction under IPC 498A set aside)
  15. Sundar Babu & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009
  16. U.Suvetha Vs State By Insp.Of Police & Anr on 6 May, 2009 (Concubine is not a relative of husband)
  17. Shakson Belthissor Vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 6 July, 2009 [Allegations do not attract 498A IPC ingredients]
  18. Vijeta Gajra Vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 July, 2010
  19. Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010 [SC: Family members who are residing away from accused No.1 cannot be roped into the case]
  20. Sunita Jha Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 September, 2010
  21. S Praveen Vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2012
  22. Asha Devi & Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar & Anr. on 24 July, 2012
  23. Banti And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 August, 2012
  24. Movva Raja Ram Vs State Of A.P. on 18 June, 2013
  25. State Of Punjab Vs Gurmit Singh on 2 July, 2014
  26. Babita Sumanprakash Soni Vs State Of Gujarat & on 4 December, 2014 (Concubine is not a relative of husband; IPC 494 is not applicable on concubine)
  27. Deepika Tiwary Vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2015
  28. Gayathri Kunjithaya Vs State Of Kerala On 19 January 2015
  29. Rajinder Singh Vs State of Punjab on 26 February 2015 [Overruled Appasaheb and Vipin Jaiswal]
  30. Dr. Rajneesh Satyadev Rajpurohit Vs Magistrate No.3 on 16 April, 2015
  31. Shaik Riayazun Bee Vs The State Of A.P. on 1 June, 2016
  32. Varala Bharath Kumar Vs The State Of Telangana on 5 September, 2017 [Allegations do not attract 498A and 406 IPC ingredients]
  33. Subramani Vs The Sub-Inspector Of Police on 31 October, 2017 (Marriage should be there, to apply IPC 498A)
  34. K R Nandakumar Vs State Of Karnataka on 16 March, 2018
  35. K. Subba Rao Vs The State Of Telangana on 21 August, 2018
  36. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 11 Nov 2020 [allegations do not attract the provision of IPC 306; Separate FIRs Filed At Different Jurisdictions And In Same Incident Under Same Offence NOT allowed]
  37. Samad Habib Mithani and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 25 Jul 2024 [relying on R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab, Family members cannot be roped into the case]
  38. Mr xxxx Bhat Vs State of Karnataka and Ms xxxx Rao on 28 Jun 2024 [relying on R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab, Achin Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Bhajan Lal, quashed proceedings; 211 IPC also suggested]
  39. Geetababi Khambra Vs State of MP and Anr on 9 Jan 2024 [MPHC:absence of specific date and time when the complainant-wife was subjected to the demand of dowry is sufficient to quash Dowry demand allegation]

 

Maliciously Instituted/ Counterblast cases/ Delay Not explained Cases

  1. State of Karnataka Vs M. Devendrappa and Anr on 16 Jan 2002 [Category 7 of Bhajan lal; Counterblast case]
  2. Sanapareddy Maheedhar and Anr Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr on 13 December 2007 [Time-barred u/s 468]
  3. Priya Vrat Singh & Ors Vs Shyam Ji Sahai on 5 August, 2008
  4. State Of A.P Vs M. Madhusudhan Rao on 24 October, 2008
  5. MS Eicher Tractors Ltd and Ors Vs Harihar Singh and Anr on 7 Nov 2008 [Category 7 of Bhajan lal; Counterblast case]
  6. Sundar Babu & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009
  7. Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd on 24 February 2012 [Various liberal principles in condoning delays under Sec 5 of Limitation Act; Time limitation applies to Govt instrumentality-appellant]
  8. Rajiv Thapar and Ors Vs Madan Lal Kapoor on 23 January, 2013 [SC: guidelines to/not to quash/discharge]
  9. Vineet Kumar And Ors Vs State Of UP & Anr on 31 March, 2017
  10. State vs Mumtaz Ali & Anr on 8 August, 2017
  11. Chandresh Shrivastava Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2018
  12. Dudekula Khasim Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 24 Mar 2020 [APHC: Counterblast case to Husband’s divorce case]
  13. Abhishek Singh Vs State of M.P. on 26 Dec 2022 [MPHC: 498A IPC covers invalid marriages also]
  14. Swapan Kumar Das Vs State of West Bengal on 21 Aug 2023 [CalHC: proceeding are instituted only to fulfil personal grudge; Category 1 of Bhajan lal]
  15. Achin Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Anr on 03 May 2024 [Category 7 of Bhajan lal; Counterblast case]
  16. Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors on 15 May 2024 [SC: FIR which was lodged after 39 days of the incident, does not indicate the date or time]
  17. Musin Babulal Thengade and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 29 Jan 2025 [BomHC: Limitation for prosecution under Section 498-A does not continue for indefinite period]
  18. Geddam Jhansi and Anr Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 07 Feb 2025 [SC: DVC proceedings quash for same allegations under Article 142 of Constitution]
  19. Arshad Neyaz Khan Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 24 Sep 2025 [SC: IPC 420 Vs IPC 406]

 

Material evidence required that supports allegations

  1. R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab 25 March, 1960
  2. Hira Lal & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 2865
  3. Kaliyaperumal & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828
  4. CBI Vs Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and Ors on 25 November 2005
  5. Parkash Singh Badal and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 6 December 2006 [there prima facie appears existence of any material and not the sufficiency of the materials]
  6. Ran Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr, Case no. appeal (Crl) 222 of 2008 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3089 of 2006
  7. M. Srinivasulu v. State of A.P., AIR 2007 SC 3146
  8. Appasaheb & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 763 [Overruled in Rajinder Singh here]
  9. Shivanand Mallappa Koti v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2007 SC 2314
  10. Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 3050
  11. Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. on 13 March 2013 [Demand of Property has to be in connection with marriage, as per Sec 2 of DP Act 1961] [Overruled in Rajinder Singh here]
  12. Surinder Singh Vs State of Haryana on 13 November 2013 [Part-paid dowry is in Connection with Marriage]
  13. M. Sudarshan Goud and Ors Vs The State of AP on 24 April 2020 [Demand of Property has to be in connection with marriage, as per Sec 2 of DP Act 1961]

 

Approaching Court with unclean hands

  1. All Perjury judgments can be gainfully utilized. They are here.

 

498A IPC not maintainable due to null and void marriage/Earlier Divorce

  1. Shivcharan Lal Verma and Anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 19 Feb 2002 [SC]
  2. Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam And Others on 8 Jan 2004 [SC: Held as per incuriam]
  3. Mohit Gupta and Ors vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 16 Oct 2006 [DelHC]
  4. Mohammad Miyan and Ors Vs State of UP on 21 Aug 2018 [SC: Earlier divorced hence offences of IPC 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act is not tenable/maintainable]
  5. Kanchanapally Srinivas Vs State of Telangana on 26 Apr 2021 [TSHC: Relying on Mohammad Miyan, Earlier divorced hence offences of IPC 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act is not tenable/maintainable]
  6. Kode Narasimha Kumar and Ors Vs State of AP on 10 Nov 2022 [APHC: Relying on Mohammad Miyan, Earlier divorced hence offences of IPC 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act is not tenable/maintainable]
  7. P Sivakumar and 2 Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 09 Feb 2023 [SC]
  8. Kantharaju Vs State of Karnataka on 17 Jul 2023 [KarHC]
  9. M.Sreenivasulu and Ors Vs State of AP and Ors on 15 May 2024 [APHC]

 

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

  1. All discharge judgments u/s 227 CrPC can be found here.

 

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

  1. All discharge judgments u/s 239 CrPC can be found here.

 

 


MASTER SITEMAP here.

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Counterblast case CrPC 227 - Discharged CrPC 239 - Discharged CrPC 482 - Quash CrPC 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court CrPC 482 – Criminal Proceeding Quashed IPC 494 - Not Made Out Against Woman IPC 498a - Not Made Out Is Not Relative Of Husband Limitation Act 1963 Sec 5 - Extension of prescribed period in certain cases Mala Fide Untenable Maliciously Instituted Case Solely Intended to Harass No Material To Sustain Charge No Territorial Jurisdiction Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

File a Discharge or Quash Petition

Posted on April 6, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

When you are fighting the false cases you are impleaded with, we all know it is going to be a lengthy battle. Our effort should be to cut this to the minimum as much as possible.

Identifying applicability of Legal grounds as established by a catena of Judicial Precedents, from the complaint, FIR or Charge-sheet along with other Prosecution documents such as witness statements made u/s 161 CrPC, is the first task one has to do. Then search and procure the judgments applicable for the identified grounds. Later on draft your Discharge or Quash petition citing the identified legal grounds on how the facts of your case match that of the Precedents and support them by giving a reference to the Judgments.

Discharge Petition

One of the ways is to apply for discharge of all respondents at Judicial Magistrate court citing the legal grounds under which the complaint/FIR/Charge sheet is not maintainable in the eyes of law and needs to dealt with accordingly. This can only be done any stage before the charges are ‘framed’ on the respondents/accused by the Magistrate. So strategy should be to wait for the charge-sheet to be taken cognizance by the magistrate and given a number for the case. Here, you will also try and highlight contradictory statements of these documents, to your advantage.

Of course, you can file discharge petition citing the legal grounds from just the complaint and the FIR. No need of waiting for charge sheet. We will then restrict ourselves to Complaint and FIR.

 

The discharge petition can be filed under Section 239 (for Warrant Case/originating from Police Station) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or Section 227 (Summons Case/originating from complaints to Magistrate) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

239. When accused shall be discharged. If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.

Judgments list available here.

227. Discharge. If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.

Judgments list available here.


Quash Petition

On similar note, Higher courts have powers under various sections and articles of constitution, to quash the FIR, Charge sheet, and any proceedings that are ongoing related to case like bails, mediation etc.

The quash petition can be filed under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice

 

See this page here to read and understand the legal grounds that you can cite in your discharge or quash petition.

Visit this page here to read the grounds to quash FIRs u/s 482 CrPC


VERY IMP NOTE: Since this is just discharge from a criminal case, there is every threat of again becoming accused u/s 319 CrPC. Recent SC decision is here.

Posted in File a Petition | Tagged CrPC 227 - Discharge CrPC 239 - When accused shall be discharged CrPC 245 - When accused shall be discharged CrPC 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court Summary Post Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

State of Haryana Vs Ch Bhajan Lal on 21 Nov 1990

Posted on April 4, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is the Landmark Supreme Court Judgement that can be cited and relied on in Discharge or Quash petitions under Article 226 of Constitution of India or Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 159 of Cr.P.C or Section 482 – Exercise of Inherent powers of courts.

Indicative categories:

  1. No Prima Facie Case: Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
  2. Absence of Cognizable Offence: Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
  3. Commission of Crime not disclosed: Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
  4. Investigation begun without the order of Magistrate in Non-cognizable offence: Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code.
  5. Lack of Evidence: Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
  6. Legally Barred: Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
  7. Vexatious Proceeding: Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the Accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
State Of Haryana Vs Ch Bhajan Lal on 21 November, 1990

Other Sources : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1033637/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac4ee4b014971140e92a

Citations: [1990 SCALE 2 1066], [1992 AIR SC 604], [1992 SCC CRI 1 426], [1990 SCR SUPP 3 259], [1992 CRLJ SC 527], [1992 SUPP SCC 1 335],  [1990 JT SC 4 650]


Index of landmark quash judgements is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 227 - Discharge CrPC 239 - When accused shall be discharged CrPC 245 - When accused shall be discharged CrPC 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court CrPC 482 – FIR Quashed Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order State of Haryana Vs Ch Bhajan Lal | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Newer posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Follow

AP High Court Advocate with M Tech (CS) || 12 years in 'Software Industry' as Solution Architect || Blogs at https://t.co/29CB9BzK4w || #TDPTwitter

SandeepPamarati
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
cbn_era CBN Era @cbn_era ·
9h

Remember this June 4 th 🤡😂😁
వై నాట్ 175 మావిగన్ మట్టయ్య రాష్ట్ర ప్రజలు నీకు తద్దినం పెట్టిన రోజు 😂🤡😁😄

Reply on Twitter 2062555515771846900 Retweet on Twitter 2062555515771846900 26 Like on Twitter 2062555515771846900 124 X 2062555515771846900
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
thebetterindia The Better India @thebetterindia ·
11h

On World Environment Day, we look back at a journey that redefined how India sees conservation.

From 70+ global film festivals to packed screenings across India, Turtle Walker brings to life the extraordinary 4,000-km coastal journey of Satish Bhaskar—an IIT graduate who chose

Reply on Twitter 2062530987981144492 Retweet on Twitter 2062530987981144492 8 Like on Twitter 2062530987981144492 31 X 2062530987981144492
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
sathyashrii SriSathya @sathyashrii ·
11h

Pregnant Yoga Teacher shows remarkable Balance & Flexibility... 🔥🔥

Reply on Twitter 2062520020308238483 Retweet on Twitter 2062520020308238483 25 Like on Twitter 2062520020308238483 170 X 2062520020308238483
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
swathireddytdp Swathi Reddy @swathireddytdp ·
14h

ఆంధ్రప్రదేశ్ APCNF కి ప్రపంచ గుర్తింపు!
Food Planet Prize 2026 - $1.5 మిలియన్ గెలుచుకుంది 🏆

18 లక్షల రైతు కుటుంబాలు రసాయనాలు లేని, వాతావరణ సహజ సేద్యం వైపు మళ్లాయి.
స్వీడన్ Curt Bergfors Foundation ఈ అవార్డు ఇచ్చింది.

#andhrapradesh #chandrababunaidu

Reply on Twitter 2062482940660175332 Retweet on Twitter 2062482940660175332 9 Like on Twitter 2062482940660175332 39 X 2062482940660175332
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Are Offices of Dowry Prohibition Officers in AP designated as Police Stations? June 3, 2026
  • Pune Bar Association Vs Union of India on 22 May 2026 June 2, 2026
  • Chidurala Shyamsubder Vs State of Telangana on 27 Aug 2018 May 28, 2026
  • Birendra Kumar Tiwari Vs Neetu Tiwari on 07 Dec 2022 May 27, 2026
  • Parvinder Singh Khurana Vs Enforcement of Directorate on 19 May 2026 May 26, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (4,834 views)
  • Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026 (3,367 views)
  • Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026 (3,199 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (2,443 views)
  • Jinesh CR Vs Aswathy PR on 19 Nov 2025 (2,126 views)
  • Geddam Jhansi and Anr Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 07 Feb 2025 (2,091 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (2,003 views)
  • Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar on 20 Jan 2026 (1,877 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (1,785 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (1,574 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (433)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (411)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (381)Landmark Case (381)1-Judge Bench Decision (361)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (293)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (101)Sandeep Pamarati (92)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (71)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (66)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (61)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (43)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Legal Terrorism (41)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (40)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (752)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (327)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (186)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (164)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (93)Legal Procedure (73)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (70)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (61)LLB Study Material (58)General Study Material (56)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (52)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (50)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (46)Prakasam DV Cases (46)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (45)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (44)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (27)

Recent Comments

  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • ShadesOfKnife on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)
  • KONURU VINAYKUMAR on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)
  • ShadesOfKnife on Lifecycle Stages of a Section 498A IPC Case

Archives of SoK

  • June 2026 (2)
  • May 2026 (24)
  • April 2026 (33)
  • March 2026 (42)
  • February 2026 (30)
  • January 2026 (21)
  • December 2025 (2)
  • November 2025 (3)
  • October 2025 (17)
  • September 2025 (12)
  • August 2025 (5)
  • July 2025 (10)
  • June 2025 (15)
  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (10)
  • March 2025 (7)
  • February 2025 (8)
  • January 2025 (1)
  • December 2024 (3)
  • November 2024 (4)
  • October 2024 (16)
  • September 2024 (15)
  • August 2024 (14)
  • July 2024 (11)
  • June 2024 (18)
  • May 2024 (13)
  • April 2024 (9)
  • March 2024 (23)
  • February 2024 (15)
  • January 2024 (11)
  • December 2023 (11)
  • November 2023 (9)
  • October 2023 (13)
  • September 2023 (12)
  • August 2023 (15)
  • July 2023 (17)
  • June 2023 (11)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (28)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (57)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (18)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (97)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Unitedmen Foundation a dedicated community forged with the mission to unite men facing legal challenges in marital disputes. 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Vinayak my2centsworth – This blog is for honest law abiding men, married or planning to get married 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • ICN (Seoul) on 2026-06-17 June 17, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 17, 17:00 - 22:00 UTC Jun 4, 13:40 UTC Scheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ICN (Seoul) datacenter on 2026-06-17 between 17:00 and 22:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window […]
  • Cloudflare Storage Maintenance June 15, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 15, 12:00 - 13:00 UTC May 28, 22:16 UTC Scheduled - Cloudflare has scheduled maintenance for our backend storage systems. Services will continue to operate normally, but customers will be unable to create/delete/modify tunnels, routes, hostname routes, virtual networks, devices and tunnel configurations via the Dashboard or the public […]
  • EWR (Newark) on 2026-06-11 June 11, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 11, 06:00 - 14:00 UTC Jun 4, 13:40 UTC Scheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in EWR (Newark) datacenter on 2026-06-11 between 06:00 and 14:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 93.92.77.170 | SD June 4, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 80 | First: 2026-06-04 | Last: 2026-06-04
  • 182.161.69.41 | S June 4, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 8 | First: 2011-03-18 | Last: 2026-06-04
  • 34.186.78.139 | S June 4, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 2 | First: 2026-06-04 | Last: 2026-06-04
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 622 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel