Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

Complaint Should Be Quashed If No Offence Made Out-Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a criminal complaint must be cancelled if a comprehensive review of the complaint reveals no evidence of an offence.

The bench made up of Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian noted that it was not conceivable to expand the scope of his complaint by simply adding the terminology used in the Indian Penal Code because the complaint itself only indicated a broken commercial relationship.

In this instance, the police issued a FIR under Sections 406, 420, 408, 460, 471, 384, 193, 196 read with Section 120B IPC after the complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., which was referred to the police by the court under Section 156(3) CrPC. The accused filed an appeal under Section 482 CrPC with the High Court to have the FIR quashed, but it was denied.

The following arguments were made before the Apex Court bench: I the complaint filed does not disclose the commission of any offence; (ii) the complaint was only a counterblast to the civil suit filed by appellant No.1 and a criminal complaint lodged by the appellants against respondent No.2; and (iii) the High Court overlooked the pendency of an application for bringing on record the chargesheet and for including a prayer for quashing of the chargesheet.

The court said, "It is not possible to broaden the scope of his complaint by merely adding the phrase used in the text of the Indian Penal Code," given that the complaint itself only revealed the breakdown of a business connection.

Latest Legal News