Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Property Trespass Case Due to 'Abuse of Process of Law'

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India has quashed the FIR and charge-sheet against Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti, holding that the continuation of proceedings constituted an "abuse of process of law" given the lack of evidence and procedural lapses in the case.

The appellant, Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti, challenged the Chhattisgarh High Court's dismissal of his petition to quash FIR No. 590 of 2019. The FIR alleged offenses under Sections 447, 427, 294, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning criminal trespass, property damage, and issuing threats. The complainant, Barkat Ali, accused Thakur and others of demolishing a boundary wall and an under-construction house, causing significant financial loss.

The Court noted the FIR's failure to specify the exact dates of the alleged incidents, coupled with an unexplained delay of 39 days in filing the complaint. "The complainant was not even sure of the date on which the alleged offenses were committed," the Court observed, highlighting the vagueness and uncertainty of the allegations (Para 14).

The Court emphasized the absence of a complaint from key witness Sushma Kashyap, whose property was allegedly damaged. "Smt. Sushma did not lodge any complaint to the police," the Court noted, undermining the credibility of the allegations (Para 14).

The Court recognized the potential for retaliatory motives, given the appellant's previous FIR against a key witness for the prosecution. "There is an imminent possibility of animus between the complainant and the accused persons," the Court observed, suggesting that the FIR was likely a counterblast (Para 16).

Considering the lack of credible evidence and procedural irregularities, the Court held that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of legal process. "We feel that it is a fit case warranting exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution," the Court concluded (Para 17).

Decision: The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to prevent abuse of the legal process. "Impugned FIR No. 590 of 2019 and all subsequent proceedings sought to be taken thereunder are hereby quashed and set aside," the judgment concluded (Para 18).

Date of Decision: 15 May 2024

Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Latest Legal News