MSME Award Cannot Be Challenged Under Article 226 To Avoid Mandatory Pre-Deposit Under Section 19: Allahabad High Court Electricity Company Strictly Liable For Death Due To Snapped Wire; Court Enhances Compensation Beyond Claimed Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court MPID Act Has No Provision To Release Attached Property To Owner After Auction Order Is Passed: Bombay High Court Non-Service Of Requisition Order Doesn't Vitiate Land Acquisition; Section 3(2) Of 1948 Act Is Directory: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Valid Journey Ticket From Deceased Is Strong Evidence Of Bona Fide Travel; Tribunal Can't Elevate Inference To Proof: Delhi High Court J&K High Court Quashes PSA Detention Of MLA; Says Public Servants’ Annoyance At Representative Raising Grievances Not ‘Public Disorder’ Vague Allegations Of Caste Abuse Without Mentioning Specific Caste Name Do Not Sustain Prima Facie Case Under SC/ST Act: Karnataka High Court Public Interest Litigation Not Maintainable In Service Matters: Madras High Court Dismisses Challenge To Reinstatement Of Panchayat Officials Choice Of Principal Is Absolute Right Of Minority Institutions, Seniority Cannot Be Imposed By State: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mutation Order Passed Without Notice To Parties Is Legally Unsustainable; Natural Justice Mandatory: Orissa High Court Right To Life Casts Obligation On State To Not Defeat Employee’s Medical Entitlements Through Technicalities: Punjab & Haryana High Court Registered Sale Deeds Presumed Valid; Specific Performance Of Oral Re-conveyance Agreement Requires Cogent Evidence: Kerala High Court Uttering 'F*** Off' During Work Spat Lacks Sexual Intent, Not Sexual Harassment Under Section 354-A IPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court High Court Cannot Implead State To Interpret Notifications In Private Litigations Under Article 227: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Act As Appellate Court Or Substitute Its Own View Under Article 227 Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Contradictory Dying Declaration Recorded After Tutoring Cannot Form Basis Of Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Father-In-Law In Dowry Death Case Section 498A IPC Not A Weapon To Settle Grudges Against In-Laws Without Specific Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Father-In-Law Physical Relationship For Years With Prior Knowledge Of Each Other's Marital Status Not Rape Under 'False Promise Of Marriage': Supreme Court

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