Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ASEEM MOWAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE & ANR – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) essentially seeking quashing of FIR No. 478/2015 dated 28.11.2015, registered at Police Station Sector 23 Dwarka, for offences under Sections 354/509/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The petitioner has also challenged the order and 14.07.2016, passed by the learned Trial Court, in the proceedings emanating from the aforesaid FIR, to the extent that charges were framed against him for offences under Sections 341/509/352 of the IPC. By the same order the petitioner was discharged for the offences 506 IPC and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act, 1960.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
3.1. On 28.11.2015, FIR no. 478/2015 was registered for offences under Sections 354/509/506 of the IPC at the instance of Respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner, who is her neighbour, had threatened her and also subjected her to severe harassment during the course of past two years. Two and a half years prior to the registration of the FIR, Respondent No. 2 had become the own
The court established that trivial allegations lacking substantial corroboration do not justify criminal proceedings, warranting quashing of FIR and charges framed against the accused.
The court emphasized that a mere statement by the prosecutrix, though crucial, must inspire confidence, particularly when significant delays exist in reporting alleged offenses.
The main legal point established is the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC if they are manifestly frivolous or vexatious, and if instituted with an ul....
The material collected during the investigation prima facie disclosed the commission of the said offences against the petitioner. The court also observed that the offences subject matter of the trial....
The court emphasized that allegations of serious offences must be supported by credible evidence before an FIR is registered, and the failure to do so constitutes an abuse of the judicial process.
Section 95 of IPC deals with act causing harm and discards conviction of accused in trivial matters which are petty in nature and no man of prudence and ordinary nature would seek to complain against....
Court confirmed that charges must be based on prima facie evidence during the discharge stage, and only extremely implausible allegations warrant quashing of charges.
The court quashed the FIR for lacking material evidence against the petitioner, emphasizing that criminal proceedings cannot continue without sufficient allegations.
The court has discretionary power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings, and it must consider the nature of the offences, the possibility of conviction, and the parties' settlement.
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
