VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL
Inspector Raies Hassan Wani – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of J&K – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing of fir based on allegations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on jurisdiction and authority. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. criteria for exercising inherent powers under section 482. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. conclusion that the petition lacks merit and is dismissed. (Para 15) |
| 5. court's discretion in quashing fir must safeguard justice. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 6. final ruling and dismissal of petition. (Para 18) |
JUDGEMENT
1. Petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR no. 15/2022 for commission of the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered in the police station Nishat in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The case set up by the petitioner is that he was posted as SHO police station Parimpora and was transferred and posted as SHO police station Nishat on 27.01.2022. In terms of Order No. 353 of 2022 dated 26.03.2022, petitioner was attached to DPL, Srinagar. It is stated that a false and frivolous complaint was filed by respondent no. 8 against petitioner and respondent no. 7 with respondent no. 2, stating therein that he holds the contract of Tulip Garden but SHO P/S Nishat with one
State of Haryana v. Chowdhary Bhajan Lal & Ors.
Mohammad Wajid & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2021) 19 SCC 401
Rajiv Thapar v Madan Lal Kapoor
State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani
State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy
The Janata Dal etc. v. H.S. Chowdhary & Ors.
Dr. Raghubir Saran v. State of Bihar & Anr. AIR 1964 SC 1
State of Maharashtra v. Arun Gulab Gawali (2010) 9 SCC 701
State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha (1982) 1 SCC 561 : 1982 SCC(Cri) 283 : AIR 1982 SC 949
Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400
G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513 : AIR 2000 SC 754
Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. (2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 703
The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs are exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process, necessitating sufficient grounds warranting quashing.
Point of law : Needless to point out that if the law provides a particular remedy to an accused, then it is always open for him to exhaust the same while approaching the concerned Court while filing ....
The court emphasized that the power to quash FIRs should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where the allegations do not disclose any offence or the prosecution is barred by law. Th....
The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process, and not to stifle legitimate prosecution.
Point of law : Powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see ....
The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process, and not to stifle legitimate prosecutions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to quash proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.