CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Chargesheet failed to disclose offence – proceedings quashed - SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Apex Court observed that it is true that it was not open for the Court to embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR, but at least there has to be some factual supporting material for what has been alleged in the FIR which is completely missing in the present case and documentary evidence on record clearly supports that her Nikah Nama was duly registered and issued by competent authority and even the charge sheet filed against her does not prima facie discloses how the marriage certificate was forged.

The case of the appellant is that she was born in a Hindu family and was married in May 2009 when she was a minor (17 years) to one Shiv Gobind Prajapati The marriage was never consummated, and this marriage was dissolved through Village Panchayat in 2014.

Appellant while doing her studies in Lucknow, met Mohd. Shameem Khan and they got married on 11th December 2016 under Sharia law against the wishes of her family. A certificate of marriage was issued by the competent authority.

Appellant having a male child from this marriage. Her husband passed away on 8th December 2017. After that appellant obtained a succession certificate in her name and no objection was given by her mother-in-law to the employer of Mohd. Shameem Khan, she got employment as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (A.N.M.) on compassionate grounds and being the legally wedded wife of the deceased, his terminal dues were paid to her.  The fact is that the entire gratuity amount of Rs.4,60,000/­ of her late husband was transferred by her to the bank account of her mother-in-law. She was thrown out of her matrimonial home by respondent no.2 (brother -in-law) with an eleven month old child on 19th August 2018 and thereafter respondent no.2 made all kinds of malafide, false and frivolous allegations against the appellant, including to the employer of the appellant to remove her from employment.  

After more than a year, at the instance of respondent no.2, a written complaint/FIR came to be registered against the appellant for offences under Sections 494, 495, 416, 420, 504 & 506 IPC at PS Bazar Khala, District Lucknow, U.P. on 9th July 2019. Anticipatory bail was granted to the appellant and after chargesheet came to be filed on 23rd March 2021 under Sections 494, 420, 504, 506, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, the learned trial Judge took cognizance of the same and summoned the appellant. 

Summoned order challenged before High Court but same was dismissed, aggrieved appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Observed by the Apex court that power of quashing of criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of the rare cases and it was not justified for the Court in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and fancies…., there was no material placed on record by the complainant to justify the bald allegations which were made in the complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered. 

Apex court further observed  that going through the complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered and other material placed on record, we are of the considered view that no offence of any kind as has been alleged in the FIR, has been made out against the appellant and if we allow the criminal proceedings to continue, it will be nothing but a clear abuse of the process of law and will be a mental trauma to the appellant. FIR Quashed.

D.D: - 10 FEBRUARY 2022.

SHAFIYA KHAN @ SHAKUNTALA PRAJAPATI  VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR

Latest Legal News