Back
C. T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL
Krishna Chandra – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application under Section 482 No.16490 of 2019. The appellant filed the said application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashment of the entire proceedings, summoning order and also the non-bail warrant issued against him in connection with Complaint Case No.1493 of 2017, wherein he was arraigned as accused No.5.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in the light of the exposition of law by this Court in Joseph Shine versus Union of India reported in (2019 (3) SCC 39), there is absolutely no question of convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’), as the said provision was declared as unconstitutional by this Court. The position that the said section was declared as unconstitutional is indisputable. When this being the indisputable position, the question is whether the proceedings in Complaint Case No.1493/2017 against the appellant be permitted to continue.
4. In the decision of this Court i
The court ruled that proceedings under Section 497 IPC cannot continue as it was declared unconstitutional, leading to the quashing of the High Court's order.
Section 497 IPC's unconstitutionality applies retrospectively, nullifying prosecutions based on it, to safeguard constitutional rights and prevent legal abuse.
(1) Criminal prosecution, if otherwise justified and based upon adequate evidence, does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of first informant or complainant.(2) Crimin....
The court affirmed the appellant's right to challenge the sanction order and clarified that prior observations should not influence the merits of the case.
The court's decision was based on the lack of reason to interfere with the High Court's order quashing the FIR and criminal proceedings.
The court affirmed that Section 258 Cr.P.C. applies only to summons cases, and once cognizance is taken under Section 494 IPC, it cannot be quashed without merit.
The High Court retains inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under the SC/ST Act, even when statutory remedies exist, to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.
FIR and criminal proceeding(s) emanating from FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of forced Settlement Agreement.
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
