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 Quashes FIR in Landmark Judgment, Cites "Fabricated and Improbable" Allegations

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has quashed an FIR in a case involving allegations of fraud, illegal mining, and exploitation, after deeming the accusations "fabricated and improbable." The bench, comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, delivered the judgment on August 8, 2023.

The case, arising from FIR No. 127 of 2022 registered at Mirzapur Police Station, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, raised issues of abuse of process and personal vengeance. The appellants, Mahmood Ali & Ors., had approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR, which the High Court had declined.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court invoked the principles established in the famous case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) to assess whether the FIR could be quashed. The court emphasized that while considering quashing, it was not limited to the contents of the FIR alone but also took into account the surrounding circumstances and materials collected during the investigation.

The court noted that the allegations presented in the FIR were not only "absurd but also highly improbable." The FIR had been lodged after a considerable delay of 14 years from the alleged incidents. The bench pointed out that "none of the ingredients to constitute the offense as alleged are disclosed." Additionally, the court recognized the possibility of the FIR being a result of personal vendetta, given the timing of its registration.

Referring to the changing political scenario in the state of Uttar Pradesh and the appellants' criminal history, the court opined that there was a motive for an increase in criminal complaints. It observed that the FIR appeared to be a part of a pattern of multiple cases being registered against the appellants.

Supreme Court concluded that the FIR failed to disclose the essential elements necessary to constitute the alleged offenses. It found the allegations to be concocted and quashed the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR, stating that the case fell under parameters laid down in the Bhajan Lal case.

Date of Decision: August 8, 2023 

MAHMOOD ALI & ORS. vs STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Latest Legal News