State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 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 Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication 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 Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court After Admitting Lease, Defendant Cannot Turn Around and Call It Forged—Contradictory Stand at Advanced Trial Stage Impermissible: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Amendment Plea Dismissed Employee Has No Right to Leave Encashment Under Statutory Rules: Punjab and Haryana High Court Section 13 of Gambling Act Is Cognizable — Magistrate Can Take Cognizance on Police Report: Allahabad High Court Clarifies

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