Lack Of Boundaries In Sale Deed Not Fatal To Title If Plot Number & Parent Title Are Sufficiently Identifiable: Calcutta High Court Terror Perception Of Underworld Justifies Delay In Invoking MCOCA; Purely Civil Disputes Can Metamorphose Into Criminal Offence: Bombay High Court Identical Wills Executed By Spouses On Same Day Not Necessarily 'Mutual Wills' Restricting Power Of Alienation: Delhi High Court Written Notice Not Mandatory For Revoking Permission Under Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act: Gujarat High Court Wife Cannot Maintain Complaint Against Husband Under Senior Citizens Act; Not Intended For Spousal Disputes: Karnataka High Court Mere Presence At Scene Or Facilitation Without Intent To Aid Crime Does Not Amount To Abetment: Delhi High Court Offences Under IT Act Punishable With 3 Years Imprisonment Are Bailable Under Section 77B: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In KCA Data Theft Case Premature Release Can't Be Denied Citing Section 435 CrPC If Sentence Under Central Act Is Already Served: Madras High Court Suppression Of Higher Qualification To Secure Job Reserved For Lower Education Is Foundational Fraud, Sympathy Has No Role: Supreme Court MBBS Admissions | Candidate Using NIOS Marks To Meet 50% Eligibility Cannot Claim State Govt School Quota: Orissa High Court High Court Cannot Exercise Article 227 Power To Strike Off Plaint When Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Exists: Madras High Court Section 69 IEA | Onus On Propounder To Lead Secondary Evidence & Remove Suspicious Circumstances If Attesting Witnesses Are Dead: Telangana High Court

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