Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Ongoing Investigation - Abuse of Process of Law

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has quashed an FIR (First Information Report) and ongoing investigation against the appellants, emphasizing the need to prevent the abuse of the legal process. The apex court held that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to quash FIRs should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where the refusal to do so may result in an abuse of the process of law.

The bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice C.T. Ravikumar observed that the allegations in the FIR were vague and did not contain the essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offenses. Furthermore, the court noted the existence of a pending civil suit between the parties concerning the same dispute, which the respondent had failed to disclose. The court concluded that the respondent's attempt to use the criminal proceedings as a tool of harassment against the appellants amounted to an abuse of the process of the court.

Supreme court stated, "Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases where it is evident that refusal to exercise such power would result in an abuse of the process of law." The court further added, "The factual position reveals that the genesis and purpose of the criminal proceedings are nothing but the said incident, and the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature."

The Supreme Court's decision highlights the importance of carefully examining the allegations in an FIR and ensuring that they meet the necessary requirements to constitute the alleged offenses. It also emphasizes the need to prevent the misuse of criminal proceedings as a means of harassment.

This ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary's responsibility to safeguard the principles of justice and protect individuals from malicious or baseless allegations. By quashing the FIR and all further proceedings against the appellants, the Supreme Court has upheld the integrity of the legal system and reaffirmed the importance of fair and just adjudication.

Date of Decision: January 30, 2023

Usha Chakraborty & Anr.  vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Latest Legal News