Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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