Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Courts caution against routine or mechanical grant of interim relief and stress that each case must be examined on its facts to determine if allegations are truly improbable ["2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 375"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
In the realm of criminal law, facing a baseless complaint can be a nightmare. Imagine a scenario where the allegations in a complaint sound so outlandish—like chasing someone hundreds of kilometers just for a caste slur—that no reasonable person would believe them. This raises a critical question: Can a order be quashed on the ground of an absurd story?
The answer, generally speaking, is yes. , invoking inherent powers under , may quash such orders to prevent . This blog post dives deep into the legal principles, landmark precedents, and practical considerations, drawing from key judgments. Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
is the point when a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence and decides to proceed against the accused, often upon a private complaint or police report. However, if the complaint's narrative is or , the can intervene early.
The cornerstone principle comes from precedents like 2003 0 Supreme(Pat) 1253, which states: the can intervene under Section 482 CrPC where the allegation in the complaint are so and that no prudent person can ever reach the conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. This is pivotal and applied sparingly, evaluating the complaint at face value without a 2003 0 Supreme(Pat) 1253 2010 0 Supreme(Pat) 1199.
Courts have quashed in cases where the prosecution story defies logic, often linked to ulterior motives or malicious intent.
These cases illustrate how courts focus on the complaint's inherent implausibility at the pre-trial stage 2003 0 Supreme(Pat) 1253 2010 0 Supreme(Pat) 1199.
Other judgments reinforce this approach while highlighting nuances.
These align with the core principle, emphasizing early intervention against .
Section 482 powers are not a blanket remedy. Courts caution against overreach:
Mechanical orders may still be quashed if no 1999 0 Supreme(Pat) 169, but limitation bars require more than expiry alone 2010 0 Supreme(Pat) 1347.
If facing an absurd complaint:- File a Section 482 CrPC petition in , spotlighting improbability via the .- Highlight contradictions, ulterior motives, and attach complaint excerpts—stick to face value, avoid external evidence.- Cite precedents like 2003 0 Supreme(Pat) 1253, 2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 121, 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 502 for abuse of process arguments.- Seek expeditious relief to avoid trial harassment.
Precedents affirm that absurd, improbable, or concocted stories in complaints can lead to quashing of orders under Section 482 CrPC, safeguarding against abuse of process. While powerful, this remedy is exercised judiciously, balancing against premature dismissal of arguable cases.
Key Takeaways:- Test: No prudent person finds grounds? Quash likely 2003 0 Supreme(Pat) 1253.- Examples: Fraudulent cheques 2007 0 Supreme(Pat) 121, concocted non-supply 2010 0 Supreme(Pat) 1199, implausible chases 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 502.- Limits: case or civil overlap? Proceed to trial 2019 6 Supreme 474.- Strategy: Argue malice and absurdity early.
This framework empowers accused facing frivolous cases. For tailored guidance, approach a legal expert promptly.
The present quashing application has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of cognizance order dated 09.07.2015 passed by S.D.J.M., East Muzzafarpur in Complaint Case No. ... (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. ... He further alleged that the second story ....
The doctor who was accused in the case and cognizance was also taken against him came up before this Court for quashing and the same was quashed holding the story is absurd and filed with oblique motive and hence the cognizance was quashed. ... Cr PC has been filed for quashing the order of cognizance dated 19th August. 1996 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Bermo at Tenughat in Complaint Case No. 164 of 1996 under Sections 341,500,....
Petitioner has sought quashing of the complaint and the order dated 20.09.2012 whereby process has been issued against him and the proforma respondents, mainly on the ground that the complaint is false and frivolous and has been managed by PW-Parveen Rao to harass the petitioners and his other family ... Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for pr....
Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. ... The order does not, however, debar the accused from addressing arguments on the point of limitation, maintainability of the order of cognizance or the plea that the chargesheet was filed in defiance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of J....
This is a petition for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 02. 04. 2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Complasint-cum-Protest Case No. 2728 (C) of 2010 (arising out of Budha Colony P.S. ... Hence the allegation made apparently appears to be manifestly absurd and inherently improbable that no reasonable person will believe the story. ... It is further submitted that allegations made in the complaint as well as statement of the complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 a....
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. ... The applicants filed an application for discharge which has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated 16.02.2024. 8. The applicants had sought discharge on the ground that F.I.R. ... By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicants have sough....
The allegations made in the FIR and the charge sheet are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach just conclusion, that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the present petitioner. ... He further submits that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the order of taking cognizance, which is not supported by reason. ... The guideline for quashing of a proceeding as laid down in State of Haryana Vs. ... It is trite law that the learned Magistra....
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 06.02.2016 passed by Addl. ... Hence, the order taking cognizance against the petitioners, in my considered opinion is nothing, but an abuse of process of the Court. Hence the impugned order is quashed and accordingly this petition is allowed. ... of posting itself and on the basis of aforesaid story no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficien....
The said order taking cognizance and the entire criminal proceedings have been assailed in this petition on the ground that the prosecution case is false and malicious and that they do not constitute the alleged offences. The story made out in the complaint petition is improbable and unbelievable. ... Order ... In this petition, the petitioner has prayed tor quashing the order dated 18th December, 2003 passed in P.C.A. No. 346 of 2003fT.R. ... It has been stated, int....
made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis of the same, no prudent person can ever reach to a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. ... (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. ... However, an interim order of stay of investigation dur....
On aforesaid ground a prayer has been made to quash the order of cognizance so far petitioner is concerned. This court while quashing the order of cognizance in respect of co–accused Birendra Kumar Singh has observed that the present proceeding was vexatious, absurd and inherently improbable. He has referred to Annexure - 8 to the supplementary affidavit which was filed on 5th July 2016. He submits that this court had noticed the fact that co-accused Birendra Kumar Singh had taken action against the complainant of the present case.
It is submitted that pendency of Civil suit at the instance of petitioners cannot be treated as a license for committing the present crime. Thus, materials collected during the investigation prima facie show that the petitioners and their men had committed the present crime. Thus, pendency of title suit is no ground for quashing the order of cognizance. It is further submitted that investigating officer while submitting charge sheet had categorically stated that during the investigation, he inspected place of occurrence and recorded the statements of witnesses and come to t....
Only on oral evidence, without any corroborative material, the complainant had succeeded to initiate the proceeding in the case against the petitioner and others. On the ground of absence of order of cognizance and unbelievable story, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire proceeding against the petitioner.
It was argued that in mechanical manner, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of offences even after expiry of period of limitation and in similar manner, the learned revisional court has rejected the Criminal Revision. On the sole ground of limitation, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order of cognizance.
No 2 was dissolved on 16.08.1998 by qazi and also enquiry witness No 1 Fayyaz Alam, who had supported the complainant, was also examined before the Qazi, Darul Qaza, Badi Eidgah, Purnea in Case No 115 of 1499 Hijri. Accordingly, he has prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance on the ground of malicious prosecution.
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
