Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

Delhi High Court Quashes FIR against Afghan Refugee 'Manifestly Frivolous' and instituted with 'Ulterior Motive'

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark ruling, the High Court has quashed an FIR filed against an accused on charges of molestation and criminal intimidation. The Court held that the criminal proceedings were "manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with ulterior motive."

"The High Court can go beyond the averments made in the FIR/complaint and 'read between the lines' to examine if the ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are made out or not," the judge observed, referring to the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC. [Para 17]

The case revolved around two separate complaints filed against the accused by a doctor running her own clinic. The first complaint dated 13th July 2021 accused the defendant of forgery and theft, while the subsequent complaint dated 10th September 2021, filed by the same complainant, alleged molestation and criminal intimidation.

"A perusal of the two complaints clearly demonstrates that the respondent no.2 has substantially improved the allegations made in her first complaint while filing the second one," the judge noted, adding that an "entirely new case" had been set up in the second complaint. [Para 23]

Questioning the credibility of the complainants, the Court further stated, "This is not one of the cases where the complainant was hesitant to go before the police and make a complaint regarding a sexual offence. The respondents no.2 and 3 are educated doctors and filed a complaint immediately after the alleged incident." [Para 24]

Interestingly, the Court noted that no explanation was provided as to why the respondent had not shared the CCTV footage of the alleged incident with the police. "Only an oral submission has been made in the course of the hearing by the counsel for the respondent no.2 and 3 that the CCTV camera in respect of the place where the incident took place was not working," the judge said. [Para 27]

In light of these observations, the High Court quashed the FIR and charge sheet filed against the accused, calling upon all courts and police authorities to strictly follow the law laid down in precedent cases.

This judgment is being seen as a significant reminder of the caution that must be exercised in initiating criminal proceedings, and it underscores the powers of the High Court to quash proceedings that are found to be baseless or motivated by vengeance.

Date of Decision: September 18, 2023

RAMEZ FAQIRI vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Latest Legal News