Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

A Deliberate Attempt to Mislead This Court Necessitates Stringent Measures: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fines Petitioner Rs. 50,000 for Misleading Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed a petition to quash an FIR against Supinder Singh alias Soni, who is accused of molestation and threats. Justice Sumeet Goel emphasized the importance of the trial court in evaluating evidence, especially when substantial prosecution evidence has already been recorded. Additionally, the petitioner was fined for providing misleading information about a previous petition.

Facts of the Case: The case involves FIR No. 0048 dated 25.06.2022, registered under Sections 452, 354 IPC, and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The FIR was later amended to include Sections 354-A and 195-A IPC. The allegations were made by a 15-year-old girl, Kajal, who claimed that Hardeep Singh alias Deepi entered her room and attempted to molest her, offering money in exchange for inappropriate acts. Kajal’s statement was supported by her grandmother, despite initial hesitations due to societal shame. Supinder Singh alias Soni was later implicated for threatening Kajal’s uncle to force a compromise in the case.

Scope and Ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C.: The court delved into the nature and scope of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), 1973. Justice Goel noted, “Inherent powers are those essential for the court to ensure justice and prevent abuse of the legal process.” The judgment emphasized that these powers should be exercised sparingly, especially when a significant part of the prosecution’s evidence has already been recorded.

Evaluation of Prosecution Evidence: Justice Goel asserted that evaluating the sufficiency and reliability of evidence is primarily the domain of the trial court. “The High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should refrain from conducting a mini-trial,” he stated, referring to precedents that restrict the High Court from appreciating evidence in such petitions.

Misleading Information and Costs Imposed: The petitioner had previously filed a quashing petition that was dismissed for non-prosecution. In the current petition, it was misleadingly claimed that the prior petition was withdrawn with liberty to refile. This attempt to mislead the court led to the imposition of costs. “A deliberate attempt to mislead this Court necessitates stringent measures,” Justice Goel remarked, imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner.

The court highlighted several precedents to underscore the limited circumstances under which it can quash an FIR post-substantial evidence recording. It cited the Supreme Court’s stance that inherent powers should be used to prevent injustice but must not be exercised lightly, particularly when evidence evaluation is pending before a trial court.

Justice Sumeet Goel remarked, “The inherent powers of a High Court are unbridled, unfettered, and plenary in nature. However, the exercise of such powers requires self-restraint.” He added, “No compelling or accentuating facts have been brought forward to persuade this Court to hold that the continuation of trial proceedings constitutes an abuse of the process of law.”

The dismissal of the petition underscores the judiciary’s commitment to allowing trial courts to perform their role in evidence evaluation. The imposition of costs highlights the court’s intolerance for misleading information and procedural abuse. This judgment reinforces the principle that inherent powers must be exercised judiciously and sparingly, ensuring that the trial process is not prematurely curtailed.

Date of Decision: 23rd May 2024

Supinder Singh alias Soni vs. State of Punjab and Another

Similar News