Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for State of Maharashtra VS Narain Singh Yadav...
2002 0 Supreme(SC) 2103 : Prosecution should not be quashed unless it is illegal, perverse, or mala fide. The State has a constitutional obligation to ensure speedy trial and conclusion of criminal proceedings.Checking relevance for State of Odisha VS Pratima Mohanty Etc. ...
2021 8 Supreme 746 : The guidelines for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, are that the power should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, only in rare cases. Quashing of a complaint or FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule. Criminal proceedings should not normally be quashed when a thorough investigation has led to the filing of a charge-sheet. Courts at the stage of discharge or when considering an application under Section 482 are not required to go into the merits of allegations or evidence in detail, as if conducting a mini-trial. The court cannot embark on an enquiry into the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in an FIR or complaint. The power under Section 482 is wide but requires the court to be cautious, as it imposes an onerous and more diligent duty. The High Court''''s action in quashing proceedings by entering into the merits of allegations and conducting a detailed weighing of evidence is impermissible and amounts to a mini-trial, which is not permissible under this provision.Checking relevance for GOLD QUEST INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU...
2014 7 Supreme 148 : The High Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIRs under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if the dispute is substantially matrimonial in nature or a civil property dispute with criminal facets, and the parties have settled their dispute, particularly when there are no chances of conviction. The power to quash is distinct from compounding of offences under Section 320 and is exercised to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of any court. The High Court must consider the nature and gravity of the offence; serious offences such as murder, rape, dacoity, offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, or those carrying punishment of life imprisonment or death, cannot be quashed even if the victim and offender have settled. However, criminal cases with a predominant civil flavour—such as those arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership, family, or dowry disputes—may be quashed if the settlement is complete, the possibility of conviction is remote, and continuing the proceedings would cause extreme injustice or oppression to the accused. The exercise of this power is discretionary and fact-specific, requiring a careful assessment of whether continuation of the case would amount to abuse of process despite a full settlement.Checking relevance for Union Of India VS Corporal A. K. Bakshi...
Checking relevance for Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan VS State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)...
2022 5 Supreme 65 : The guidelines for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, include that the power should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection, only in the rarest of rare cases. The court must not embark on an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness, or truthfulness of allegations in a complaint or FIR. The quashing court should not take upon itself the burden of separating ''''wheat from chaff'''' where facts are contested, nor should it become an expedition into the merits of a factual dispute. The court should not determine the weight of defences raised by the accused at the pre-trial stage. Even if some suspicion or doubt is shown regarding the prosecution''''s allegations, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial, as this would result in finality without allowing the prosecution to adduce evidence. The balance of convenience at the pre-trial stage generally favours the complainant, especially when there is a legal presumption (e.g., under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881) that a cheque was issued in discharge of a debt. The accused must be given a fair opportunity to adduce evidence in an open trial to rebut such presumption. Quashing proceedings at a preliminary stage can have grave and irreparable consequences, including ousting the trial court from its proper role of weighing material evidence and potentially giving the accused an unmerited advantage. Therefore, quashing is not merited at the nascent stage of proceedings, particularly when factual controversies exist and legal presumptions apply.Checking relevance for GIAN SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB...
2012 7 Supreme 1 : The High Court may quash criminal proceedings, FIR, or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if it is satisfied that: (i) the dispute between the offender and victim has been fully settled; (ii) the nature and gravity of the crime are such that the offence predominantly has a civil flavour (e.g., arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership, matrimonial, dowry, or family disputes); (iii) the possibility of conviction is remote or bleak due to the settlement; (iv) continuation of the criminal proceedings would result in oppression, prejudice, or extreme injustice to the accused; and (v) quashing the proceedings is necessary to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of law. However, this power does not extend to heinous offences like murder, rape, dacoity, or offences involving moral turpitude, public servants, or crimes against society, even if the victim and offender have settled the matter. The power to quash is distinct from compounding of offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and cannot be used to override express statutory bars. Each case must be decided on its own facts, with no rigid categories prescribed.
