Bhanu Prasad Variganji Vs State of Telangana on 16 March 2020

Posted on April 2, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Smt Justice Sri Devi had passed a Quash order on the false and malicious proceedings which were initiated u/s 498 IPC and others under the ground that there are no specific details in the Charge Sheet to bring home the allegations also because Assistant Government Pleader did not obtain sanction from Central Government to ask the Magistrate to take cognizance of this case.

Citations:

Inder Mohan Goswami & Another Vs State Of Uttaranchal & Others on 9 October, 2007

Posted on September 18, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the landmark judgment regarding the inherent powers of High Court

Powers of Court under CrPC 482

Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised:
(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.

Reference made to available here R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866.

In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, this court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:
(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

Reference made to Perjury

The court noticed that the tendency of perjury is very much on the increase. Unless the courts come down heavily upon such persons, the whole judicial process would come to ridicule. The court also observed that chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustration by cheaply invoking jurisdiction of the criminal court.

And law is explained in regards to IPC 415 and 420 Cheating case.

On a reading of the aforesaid section, it is manifest that in the definition there are two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. In the first class of acts he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver property to any person. The second class of acts is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases, the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but need not be fraudulent or dishonest. Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to subsequently keep a promise, one cannot presume that he all along had a culpable intention to break the promise from the beginning.

And the forgery

The following ingredients are essential for commission of the offence under section 467 IPC:
1. the document in question so forged;
2. the accused who forged it.
3. the document is one of the kinds enumerated in the aforementioned section.

when to issue non-bailable warrants for arresting an individual.

Before parting with this appeal, we would like to discuss an issue which is of great public importance, i.e., how and when warrants should be issued by the Court? It has come to our notice that in many cases that bailable and non-bailable warrants are issued casually and mechanically. In the instant case, the court without properly comprehending the nature of controversy involved and without exhausting the available remedies issued non-bailable warrants.

And… When non-bailable warrants should be issued,

Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to court when summons of bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired result. This could be when:
* it is reasonable to believe that the person will not voluntarily appear in court; or
* the police authorities are unable to find the person to serve him with a summon; or
* it is considered that the person could harm someone if not placed into custody immediately.

As far as possible, if the court is of the opinion that a summon will suffice in getting the appearance of the accused in the court, the summon or the bailable warrants should be preferred. The warrants either bailable or non-bailable should never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, due to the extremely serious consequences and ramifications which ensue on issuance of warrants. The court must very carefully examine whether the Criminal Complaint or FIR has not been filed with an oblique motive.
In complaint cases, at the first instance, the court should direct serving of the summons along with the copy of the complaint. If the accused seem to be avoiding the summons, the court, in the second instance should issue bailable warrant. In the third instance, when the court is fully satisfied that the accused is avoiding the court\022s proceeding intentionally, the process of issuance of the non-bailable warrant should be resorted to. Personal liberty is paramount, therefore, we caution courts at the first and second instance to refrain from issuing non-bailable warrants.

Inder Mohan Goswami & Another Vs State Of Uttaranchal & Others on 9 October, 2007

Indiakanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/855018/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae56e4b01497114137d5

Citation: [2008 AIR 251], [2007 (10) SCR 847], [2007 (11) JT 499], [2007 (12) SCALE 15], [2007 JT 11 499], [2008 SCC CRI 1 259], [2007 AIOL 1021], [2007 SCR 10 847], [2007 SCC 12 1], [2008 AIR SC 251], [2007 DLT 144 257], [2007 AIC SC 59 30], [2008 ALLLJ 1 40]

Index here.

State Of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004

Posted on June 4, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A key question is clarified by the 3-judge bench of Supreme Court in this landmark judgment.

Can the trial court at the time of framing of charge consider material filed by the accused?

The scope of Sections 227 and 228 and scope of Sections 239 and 240 are explained along with scope of Sections 482

At the end the following is the summary arrived at.

Under Sections 227 and 228, a Magistrate of the trial court, is supposed to consider only the material sent by prosecution along with the record of the case and the documents sent along with it, at the time of framing of the charge. The accused at that stage has no right to place before the court any material.
Under Sections 239 and 240, requires the Magistrate to consider ‘the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173’ and, if necessary, examine the accused and after giving accused an opportunity of being heard, if the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, the accused is liable to be discharged by recording reasons thereof.
Regarding the argument of accused having to face the trial despite being in a position to produce material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality, the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code and Article 226 of Constitution of India is unlimited whereunder in the interests of justice the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal’s case. Under Section 482 of the Code, along with the petition the accused may file unimpeachable evidence of sterling quality and on that basis seek quashing.

Legal point around application under/of CrPC 91

In so far as the accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. When the section talks of the document being necessary and desirable, it is implicit that necessity and desirability is to be examined considering the stage when such a prayer for summoning and production is made and the party who makes it whether police or accused. If under Section 227 what is necessary and relevant is only the record produced in terms of Section 173 of the Code, the accused cannot at that stage invoke Section 91 to seek production of any document to show his innocence. Under Section 91 summons for production of document can be issued by Court and under a written order an officer in charge of police station can also direct production thereof. Section 91 does not confer any right on the accused to produce document in his possession to prove his defence. Section 91 presupposes that when the document is not produced process may be initiated to compel production thereof.

State Of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004

Citations : [2005 AIR SC 359], [2005 ALT CRI 1 1198], [2005 CLT SC 99 348], [2005 GLH 1 312], [2004 JT SC 10 303], [2005 KLT SC 1 80], [2005 OLR SC 1 357], [2005 RLW SC 3 414], [2004 SCALE 10 50], [2005 SCC 1 568], [2005 SCC CRI 415], [2004 SLT 7 339], [2004 SUPREME 8 568], [2005 OCR 30 177], [2005 RCR CRI 1 297], [2005 CALCRILR 1 487], [2005 CRIMES SC 1 1], [2004 AIR SCW 6813], [2005 CTC SC 1 134]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7496/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae0be4b0149711412c9f

Index of Quash judgments u/s 482 are here.

Chandresh Shrivastava Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2018

Posted on May 11, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Good judgment from MP High Court.

Para 6,

In the aforesaid circumstances, the allegation with regard to demand of dowry and harassment are prima facie absurd and the aforesaid facts show that after getting summons of the petition for divorce filed by the applicant no.1, as a counter blast, she lodged the FIR maliciously with a view to take revenge with the husband and in-laws.

Chandresh Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2018

Sundar Babu & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009

Posted on May 5, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another landmark judgment from Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat as part of a three-judge bench.

Intro

Marriage took place on 25/11/1998
Appellant No.1 left for USA on 1/7/1999
Complaint was filed on 6/2/2000 under Sec.498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Charge-sheet was filed on 8/6/2000
Divorce petition was filed by the complainant, which appears to have been granted ex parte on 12/7/2001
Complainant – Sukanya has remarried on 24/8/2002

Legal points enumerated by their Lordships are

No basis for making the allegations
No explanation for the delayed lodging of the complaint was offered.
Even a cursory perusal of the complaint shows that the case at hand falls within the category (7) of the illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal’s case
1. “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.”

Sundar Babu & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009

The reportable version of judgment is here.

Sundar_Babu_&_Ors_vs_State_Of_Tamil_Nadu_on_19_February,_2009

Citations : [2009 SCC 14 244], [2010 SCC CRI 1 1349], [2009 ECRN SC 2 1288], [2009 AIOL 261], [2009 JT 13 666], [2009 SCALE 5 1], [2009 SCR 3 326]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1091787/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd328607dba63d7e6c4d8

Amit Kumar Yadav And Others vs State Of Telangana on 11 September, 2015

Posted on May 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a Quash Judgment from Hon’ble AP high Court on grounds such as

No Jurisdiction
Delay in filing complaint
Suppression of Material Facts
1. Hiding Divorce deed
2. Hiding settlement made by elders of community, after returning items given during marriage

Amit Kumar Yadav And Others vs State Of Telangana 11 September, 2015 crlp_2091_2015

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159121592/

Citation:

Mahesh Tiwari Vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 August, 2016

Posted on April 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a Quash Judgment of Allahabad High Court in which it was held that an Affidavit can be considered as a evidence, in regards to a Perjury petition under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for an offense punishable under Section 193 IPC.

The salient features of giving false evidence under Section 191 IPC are:-

(i) intentionally making a false statement, or
(ii) declaration by a person who is under a legal obligation to speak the truth.

But it must be remembered that the very essence of crimes of this kind is not how such statements may injure this or that party to litigation but how they may deceive and mislead the courts and thus produce mischievous consequences to the administration of justice.

Consequently, there cannot be any doubt that if a statement or averment in a pleading is false, it falls within the definition of offence under Section 191 IPC. It is not necessary that a person should have appeared in the witness box. The offence stands committed and completed by the filing of such pleading.

An affidavit is ‘evidence’ within the meaning of Section 191 IPC and a person swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury. The definition of the offence of giving false evidence applies to the affidavits.

Mahesh Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 August, 2016

Read Baban Singh and another vs. Jagdish Singh and others here.

Read Ranjeet Singh vs. State of Pepsu AIR 1959 SC 843 here.

Read S.P.Kohli (Dr.) vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana AIR 1978 SC 1753 here.

Read Asgar Ali Mulla Ibrahimji vs. Emperor AIR 1943 Nag 17(18) here.

Read Emperor vs. Padam Singh AIR 1930 All 490 here.

Read Parag Dutt vs Emperor AIR 1930 Oudh 62 (63) here.

Battula Siva Nageshwar Rao Vs Jasti Venkateswara Rao & Another on 31 March, 2016

Posted on April 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

AP High Court delivered this Quash verdict reiterating that ‘Decisions of Civil Courts are binding on the Criminal Courts‘

Battula Siva Nageshwar Rao Vs Jasti Venkateswara Rao & Another on 31 March, 2016

Read about Section 383 of IPC by clicking here.

Read about Section 427 of IPC by clicking here.

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]

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

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Quash

Bhanu Prasad Variganji Vs State of Telangana on 16 March 2020

Inder Mohan Goswami & Another Vs State Of Uttaranchal & Others on 9 October, 2007

State Of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004

Chandresh Shrivastava Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2018

Sundar Babu & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009

Amit Kumar Yadav And Others vs State Of Telangana on 11 September, 2015

Mahesh Tiwari Vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 August, 2016

Battula Siva Nageshwar Rao Vs Jasti Venkateswara Rao & Another on 31 March, 2016

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

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