Inadequate Explanation Under Section 313 CrPC Cannot Be Foundation For Conviction If Prosecution Fails To Prove Case: Allahabad High Court No-Confidence Motion In Housing Societies Fails If 2/3 Majority Not Met; Fractions In Voting Threshold Cannot Be Rounded Down: Bombay High Court Successor Rent Controller Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Or Act As Appellate Court Under Review Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Restores Eviction Order Article 21 Overrides PMLA Section 45 Rigors In Cases Of Unduly Long Incarceration Without Trial: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To SSC Scam ‘Middleman’ Unregistered Family Partition Deed Recording Past Oral Arrangement Doesn't Require Compulsory Registration: Gujarat High Court Private Banks Acting As Authorised Dealers Under FEMA Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction; Can Refuse Transactions For 'Sanctions-Related' Concerns: Gauhati High Court Non-Examination Of Investigating Officer Not Fatal To Prosecution Case If Eyewitness Testimony Is Credible & Trustworthy: Jharkhand High Court Mere Denial Of Signature Insufficient When Execution Is Proved Through Endorsements: Karnataka High Court Restores Specific Performance Decree Sectarianism Claims Can't Discredit Reliable Testimony Of Child Sexual Abuse Victim: Kerala High Court Upholds Madrassa Teacher's Conviction State Must Prove Specific 'Public Interest' To Exempt Projects From Social Impact Assessment Under Section 10A Land Acquisition Act: Telangana High Court Or 2 Rule 2 CPC |Failure To Seek Specific Performance In Earlier Injunction Suit Bars Subsequent Claim; Readiness & Willingness Must Be Continuous: Madras High Court Exoneration In Departmental Proceedings Does Not Result In Automatic Discharge In Criminal Case: Orissa High Court History Sheet Can Be Opened On 'Reasonable Belief' Even Without Conviction, But Must Be Reviewed After 7 Years Of Good Conduct: Rajasthan High Court

Supreme Court: FIR Quashed on Grounds of Extortion and False Evidence Charges

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling today, the Supreme Court of India handed down a landmark judgment, quashing a First Information Report (FIR) based on charges of extortion and false evidence. The case, heard by a bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, delved into the applicability of Section 195A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the elements of extortion under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case revolved around allegations of threats aimed at causing a witness to provide false evidence before the court. The Court meticulously examined the provisions and concluded that the requisite elements to establish the charges were lacking. In this context, the Court notably remarked, "…there is nothing to indicate that there was an actual delivery of possession of property (money) by the person put in fear. In the absence of anything to even remotely suggest that the first informant parted with a particular amount after being put in fear of any injury, no offence under Section 386 of the IPC can be said to have been made out."

The judgment also delved into the parameters for quashing an FIR, as laid out in the case of Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana. The Court underscored the importance of considering the broader context and motives behind the registration of multiple FIRs. "In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines," the Court observed.

The decision was hailed as a significant precedent in matters involving the quashing of FIRs. While allowing the appeal and quashing the impugned order, the Court clarified that its observations were specific to the case at hand and would not affect other ongoing criminal proceedings or prosecutions.

Date of Decision: August 08, 2023

SALIB @ SHALU @ SALIM  vs STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Latest Legal News