Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan 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.

Similar News