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

FIR Registered Against Bank Manager in Husband Wife Dispute – Quashed – Bombay HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Bombay HC observed in the recent Judgement (Shalinder Kumar Vs State D.D. 01 Feb.2023) that the material placed before the court does not disclose the commission of any cognizable or non-cognizable offense by the petitioner. The allegations are absurd and inherently improbable, and no prudent person could reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner.

In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside the FIR and charge-sheet filed against an Assistant General Manager of Bank of India in C.R. No. 318 of 2019. The petitioner had filed a petition seeking quashing of the FIR, which had been registered against him by the BKC Police Station, Mumbai on 17.11.2019. The allegations against him were that he had acted as a middleman in introducing the two families of the bride and bridegroom, and had played no role in the physical and mental cruelty inflicted upon the victim by her husband and in-laws.

The court further observed that despite repeated questioning, neither the learned APP nor the Investigating Officer present in court could justify why the petitioner was being arraigned as an accused in the crime. This was viewed as an abuse of the process of law that cannot be tolerated. The court further noted that the allegations against the petitioner were baseless and without substance, and even if taken at face value, no offense was prima facie made out against him.

In light of the judgment in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., the court invoked jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and quashed and set aside the FIR and charge-sheet against the petitioner, only insofar as they related to him. The court held that the allegations were absurd and inherently improbable, and that no prudent person could reach a just conclusion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner.

This judgment highlights the importance of ensuring that there is sufficient evidence and justification before arraigning a person as an accused in a criminal case. It also emphasizes the need for individuals to seek legal remedies in cases where they have been falsely implicated or accused without any basis.

Bombay High court also observed that despite repeated questioning, neither the learned APP nor the Investigating Officer present in court could justify why the petitioner was being arraigned as an accused in the crime. This is viewed as an abuse of the process of law that cannot be tolerated. It was only in the respondent no.1's supplementary statement recorded on 25.11.2019 that the petitioner was accused of cheating by exploiting her father's sentiment. However, this cannot be considered as offenses attracting Sections 406 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Baseless allegations against the applicant, no offense prima facie made out. Jurisdiction invoked under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. FIR and charge-sheet against applicant quashed and set aside.

Shalinder Kumar Vs State

Latest Legal News