Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act

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