Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

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