SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(SC) 20949

SUPREME COURT
Aniruddha Bose, Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.
Sachin Chaudhary v. State of UP
S. L. P. (Crl.) No. 10915 of 2023



The court upheld that mere allegations do not constitute an offence under the IPC provisions mentioned until investigations are complete.

Headnote:This judgment concerns a petition for quashing an F.I.R. under Sections 153A, 505(2), and 504 of the Indian Penal Code regarding allegations made against the petitioner for derogatory comments. The High Court previously dismissed the quashing petition, reiterating that the law enforcement is to complete its investigation before further action. The court finds that allegations do not meet the burden of constituting an offense under the cited sections. The ruling concludes with the dismissal of the petition and disposal of any pending applications.

Table of Content
1. quashing of f.i.r. petition based on allegations of derogatory comments. (Para 1 , 2)
2. final ruling on dismissal of the petition. (Para 3 , 4)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The allegations against the petitioner are of making abusive and derogatory comments about holder of a high office. The petitioner applied for quashing an F.I.R. registered in that regard. In the F.I.R., the commission of offences with which the petitioner has been implicated are under S.153A, S.505(2) and S.504 of the Indian Penal Code . The petitioner applied to the jurisdictional High Court seeking quashing of the proceeding arguing that even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are taken to be true, the same would not constitute an offence under S.153A of the IPC. This argument of the petitioner has been summarized in the order of the High Court, in which the quashing plea of the petitioner has been rejected. The law enforcement agency is still investigating the alleged commission of offences and they ought to decide on future course of action after completion of investigation. At this stage we do not think it is a fit case for interference.

3. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed with the above observations.

4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top