Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ajay Rastogi, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Harsh R. Kilachand – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 886 of 2022
Decided on : 31-5-2022
Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 154 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 420 -- quashing of FIR -- High Court did not appreciate even bare facts -- respondents restrained from taking any coercive action against appellants for period of eight months -- appellants at liberty to file application seeking interim protection before High Court. [Paras 8 & 9]
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been preferred for quashing of the FIR No. 17 of 2022 dated 24.2.2022 registered with Police Station Mukteshwar, District Nainital, Uttarakhand for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC.
3. We have heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel for the appellants and with her assistance have gone through the various orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court disposing of the criminal writ petition in a cyclostyled manner.
4. Prima facie, we are of the view that while passing these orders, the learned Judge has not taken pains to look into the merits of the matter and has passed cyclostyled orders.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants, on instructions, submits that the counsel for the appellants before the High Court tried to persuade the Court to appreciate the facts on merits for quashing of the FIR in regard to which the complaint was made but the order impugned dated 4.4.2022 does not disclose even the bare facts for appreciation and this is the reason for the appellants to approach this Court by filing this appeal.
6. In our considered view, the manner in which the order impugned dated 4.4.2022 has been passed by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be appreciated by this Court.
7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order impugned dated 4.4.2022 is hereby set-aside and the Criminal Writ Petition No. 514/2022 is restored on the file of the High Court of Uttarakhand and to be heard on its own merits, in accordance with law.
8. For a period of eight weeks, the respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action against the appellants in reference to FIR No. 17 of 2022.
9. The appellants are at liberty to file an application seeking interim protection before the High Court.
10. We further request the Chief Justice of the High Court to list the Criminal Writ Petition before another Judge.
11. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
The court established that the submission of a chargesheet does not automatically render a quashing petition infructuous, and the court retains the authority to assess the merits of the case based on....
The Supreme Court ruled that a pending FIR can be quashed even after a chargesheet is filed if cognizance of the offense has not been taken, affirming the court's continued jurisdiction under Article....
FIR and criminal proceeding(s) emanating from FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of forced Settlement Agreement.
The court emphasized that the power to quash an FIR should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in a miscarriage of justice.
Court is empowered to take cognizance of disobedience or breach of an order granted by it and to proceed against offender for such disobedience or breach under provisions of Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC.
Dowry offences – Criminal case cannot proceed on general and omnibus allegations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
