'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

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