Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Supreme Court Reiterates Limited Scope of Quashing Proceedings in Serious Offences

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The scope of interference, while quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and that too for a serious offence like Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is very limited. The Court would exercise its power to quash the proceedings only if it finds that taking the case at its face value, no case is made out at all. - Supreme Court of India

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the restricted power to quash proceedings in cases involving serious offences. The apex court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, rendered its decision on August 7, 2023.

The case, Criminal Appeal No. Of 2023: Manik B vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Anr., revolved around the quashing of proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Court firmly underscored that while considering an application for discharge and quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., different factors come into play. It noted that the High Court’s approach in the impugned order, wherein it almost conducted a mini trial while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482, was impermissible. The Court quoted, “Such an exercise, in our considered view, is not permissible while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.” The Court pointed out that the scope of interference while quashing proceedings for serious offences is limited and permissible only if no case is made out at face value.

The judgment not only set aside the impugned order but also remitted the matter back to the learned trial Judge for trial of the case on its merits and in accordance with the law. Respondent No.1 was granted the liberty to file an application for discharge if desired.

Legal experts have welcomed the judgment, highlighting the Court’s reaffirmation of the importance of personal liberty and its cautious approach in granting bail. This judgment serves as a reminder of the limited nature of interference while quashing proceedings in serious offences, as well as the distinction between quashing proceedings and considering an application for discharge.

Date of Decision: August 07, 2023

MANIK B vs  KADAPALA SREYES REDDY & ANR.        

Latest Legal News