Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court 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 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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