Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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