criminal proceedings

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: A writ petition was entertained by a Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, JJ. and subsequently dismissed in limine. 

The petitioner filed a writ seeking protection against a rival businessman; the protection was requested from the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police of the said area. The learned counsel for petitioner Mr Sandeep Kothari, submitted that the accused businessman is a well known and powerful personality in the area and has instigated the local police officers and therefore they are putting a hindrance on the petitioner to carry on his business in a peaceful manner.  

The Court was concerned about the rights and safety of the petitioner but before granting any relief and for balancing of interest, the Court demanded a preliminary inquiry report from the learned Deputy Advocate General of State. The report stated that no FIR or complaint is lodged against the petitioner in the State of Uttarakhand but it was found that a criminal case was filed under Section 420 IPC and Section 5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme Act, 1978, in Assam and Madhya Pradesh. 

The petitioner contended that although the said cases are lodged against him, there is no veracity in it and the allegations are denied specifically by him. The learned counsel of petitioner further submitted that at the time of filing of the said petition he was not informed by the petitioner about the pending criminal proceedings against him, so he was unable to answer the questions of the Court with respect to the alleged report. 

The Court observed, petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, “He should have disclosed all these facts to this Court before seeking any relief from the Court.” The Court dismissed the aforementioned relief by the petitioner and refused to interfere in this regard due to the questionable character of the petitioner. [A. Tajuthin v. State of Uttrakhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 345, decided on 01-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J., dismissed an application filed seeking the quashing of summoning order and the entire complaint which was pending in the court of Special Judge.

The question under determination was the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution was questioned and false implication had been pleaded.

The High Court relying on a plethora of cases observed that the cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed. However, in the present case on perusal of record, the Court found a prima facie case established against the accused and therefore declined to quash the complaint. [Anil v. State of U.P., 2018 SCC OnLine All 3366, decided on 01-10-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Tripura High Court: A Bench of Arindam Lodh, J. allowed a petition for quashing of criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner.

The petitioner was arrested with other co-accused in connection with a crime under Sections 364-A, 302 and 201 IPC along with Section 27 of Arms Act. The petitioner through his counsel D. Bhattacharya, Advocate submitted that after investigation, the chargesheet submitted by the Investigating officer did not show his name. Further, that the IO specifically observed that there was no evidence against the petitioner. However, after taking cognizance of the case, the Judicial Magistrate (First class), Sonamura issued an arrest warrant against all the accused including the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition was filed.

After carefully perusing the record, the High Court expressed serious dissatisfaction to the conduct of JMFC who did not think it necessary to go through the chargesheet itself. This, according to the court, is unexpected from a Judicial Officer. The JMFC was cautioned that any such mistake in future would draw appropriate action. It was observed, “It is the solemn duty of the court to protect the life and liberty of a citizen and none should be harassed unnecessarily”. The Court was satisfied that the petitioner was discharged by the IO and therefore it allowed the petition by quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner. [Priyalal Debbarma v. State of Tripura, 2018 SCC OnLine Tri 261, Order dated 05-12-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of R.K. Gauba, J. allowed a petition for quashing of criminal proceedings pending against in light of the settlement between the parties.

Disputes arose between the petitioner and his wife which led to FIRs being lodged against each other. Subsequently, the parties entered into a settlement. They approached the matrimonial court for divorce by mutual consent. Recording the joint statement by the parties, the matrimonial court decreed the divorce by mutual consent. On the basis of the resolution between the parties, the petitioner and his relatives approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal cases against them. However, owing to such framing of the petition, the case under one of the FIRs only was quashed. Notably, the wife submitted no objection thereto. Now, the petitioner was before the Court praying the quashing of the case under the second FIR but the wife raised an objection that there being no fresh settlement, the present petition could not be entertained.

The High Court perused the record and did not agree with the objection. It noted that the settlement leading to divorce and quashing of criminal case was comprehensive, the parties specifically referred to all litigations including the second FIR. The intent of parties was to bring an end to all litigations. As such, the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of the Court. Therefore, the petition was allowed and the proceedings under the second FIR were quashed. [Sandeep Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13029, dated 11-12-2018]

 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J. invoked its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and quashed criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in view of resolution of dispute between the warring parties.

The petitioners herein were accused of committing offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Since the disputes between parties to the case had been amicably resolved, the instant petition was filed praying for quashing of proceedings pending against petitioners. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that the dispute was purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquility; and the respondents stated that they had no subsisting grievance.

The Court took note of Apex Court’s rulings in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 where it had been laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings.

It was observed that the offence committed by petitioners was not grave or serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It appeared that the offence would not have a serious impact on society. Persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction were bleak; while on the other hand quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. In view thereof, the petition was allowed.[Narayanan Nair v. Station House Officer, 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 5067, Order dated 28-11-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. allowed a petition for quashing of an FIR registered under Section 498-A, 406 and 34 IPC.

The petitioner, who was the complainant in the above said FIR, contended that she had reconciled her disputed with the respondents- her husband and his family– and had started residing with them. She was present in-person before the Court and submitted that if the said FIR continued, it may cause disruption to her family life once again. As such, she approached the Court for quashing the said FIR.

The High Court, on considering the submissions, held that keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the complainant herself approached the Court for quashing of the subject FIR in the interest of protecting her family ties, continuation of criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility; and justice in the case demanded that the dispute between parties be put to an end and peace restored. Furthermore, securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor, the Court held that it would be expedient to quash the subject FIR and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom. The petition was allowed accordingly. [Pooja Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi),2018 SCC OnLine Del 12040, dated 23-10-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: A Single judge bench comprising of N.K. Sudhindrarao, J. while hearing a civil writ petition praying for quashing of criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner, held that relief under writ jurisdiction cannot be used to scuttle the investigation of a case.

The present petition had been filed praying for quashing of criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner in the trial court. Background of the matter is that the complainant (who had filed the case in trial court) alleged that the petitioner had falsely promised him to double a certain sum of money and on that pretext sent two people to obtain Rs. 15 lakhs from the complainant. It was alleged that those two people had fled away with the said money. On realizing that he had been duped, the complainant registered a criminal case for cheating against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 420 of the  Penal Code, 1860.

Submission on behalf of the petitioner was that neither a complaint was filed nor an FIR was registered against him, but the petitioner was directly arrested and proceedings were started against him. The respondent submitted that since the matter was still under investigation, the proceedings against petitioner need not be quashed at this stage.

The High Court noted that a criminal proceeding starts with a complaint to set the criminal law in motion. Thereafter, an FIR is registered to register the commission of offence. However, it is not mandatory to mention the identity of accused in the FIR. It was observed that the scope of investigation and steps for investigation cannot be guided, controlled or stalled by filing a writ petition. Thus the Court held that a writ remedy cannot be resorted to in order to scuttle the investigation of a criminal case. [Ravi M.V. v. Amruthur Police, WP No. 49297 of 2018, decided on 16-10-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Judge Bench comprising of Ranjit More and Bharati H. Dangre, JJ., quashed the criminal proceedings for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 504, 506 and 509 of IPC,1860 on dispute being settled amicably by the parties.

The case was filed against Ness Nusli Wadia by the actress Preity Zinta for the offence under Sections 354, 504, 506 and 509 of IPC, 1860. It was stated that during the pendency of the case, the well-wishers, friends and family of the parties intervened for an amicable settlement after which the respondent 2 filed an affidavit in which it was expressed that she has no objection to quash the criminal proceeding.

Therefore, the Court on noting the affidavit filed for quashing the criminal proceeding with her own free will and respondent stating that the dispute is settled and she wants to move in life by not further proceeding for the case, the High Court quashed the subject criminal proceedings.

Further, the High Court by placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 stated that no purpose would be served by keeping the subject FIR alive except ultimately burdening the Criminal Courts. The petition stands allowed. [ Ness Nusli Wadia v. State of Maharashtra,2018 SCC OnLine Bom 3361,  dated 10-10-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of V.K. Bisht, J. allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the proceedings pending against the petitioner before the trial court in a criminal case.

The petitioner was booked as a co-accused in a criminal case registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 420, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC. Along with the petition, a joint compounding application was also filed. The compounding application was supported by the affidavits filed by the petitioner-accused and the respondent-complainant. It was stated that the petitioner and the respondent had entered into an amicable settlement, and the respondent did not want to prosecute the case any further.

The High Court noted that the petitioner and the respondent were present in the Court and they were duly identified by their respective counsels. The parties admitted to an amicable settlement. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein it was held that criminal proceedings can be quashed by the Court, if the Court is satisfied that the matter has been settled between the parties amicably and the parties are interested to restore peace and harmony between them. Having considered the submissions and after going through the entire record, the High Court was satisfied that the parties had settled the dispute amicably. Thus, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the trial court. The compounding application was disposed of accordingly. [Dilbagh Singh v. State of Uttarakhand,2018 SCC OnLine Utt 569, dated 19-6-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of P. Somarajan, J. decided an application filed under Section 482 CrPC, wherein the Court quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the accused persons.

The accused persons were booked for offence under Sections 323, 324, 325, 506 (1), 509, 377, 354, 498 A, 294 (b) and 34 IPC. Accused No. 1 was the husband of the complainant while the other accused persons were her in-laws. The present application was filed to quash the proceedings going on against the accused persons in the criminal case registered for offences as mentioned hereinabove.

The High Court perused the record and found that in the final report it was clearly shown that the parties had arrived at a genuine settlement in mediation exercise as held between them. No bad antecedents were reported against the accused persons. Accused No. 1 and the complainant were living together as husband and wife. In the said circumstances, the Court held that stretching the criminal proceedings further would be a futile exercise and no purpose would be served. Therefore, the criminal proceedings pending against the accused persons under the criminal case referred to above, were quashed. [Dileep v. State of Kerala, 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 1457, order dated 27.4.2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: The FIR registered against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 IPC was quashed by a Single Judge Bench of V.K. Bist, J.

The petitioners sought for quashing of the above-mentioned FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom. Affidavits were filed by the respondent and the injured in support of the application by the petitioners. Further, learned counsels for the parties submitted that parties had entered into a compromise and the matter had been amicably settled between them. Also, the respondent did not want to press the case further filed against the petitioners, they were left with no grudges and they wanted to live peacefully in future.

Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the High Court held that criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court if the Court is satisfied that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and they are interested to restore peace and harmony between them. On the facts of the present case, the Court found that the matter, in fact, had been amicably settled between the parties and therefore the petition deserved to be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned FIR was quashed. [Saurabh Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand,  2018 SCC OnLine Utt 385, order dated 27-04-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Ajay Mohan Goel, J., decided a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC, wherein the FIR and proceedings arising thereunder against the petitioners were quashed in light of settlement between the parties.

FIR was registered against the petitioners under Sections 420, 465, 467, 469, 471, 406 and 120-B of IPC. It was submitted that the issue which led to registration of the FIR stood amicably settled between the parties. The complainant company too submitted before the court that it had no issue if the said FIR and the proceedings arising thereunder are quashed by the Court, as they have settled the matter with the petitioners.

The High Court perused the record and held that it was a fit case to exercise its inherent powers in favour of the petitioners. The complainant company did not have any objection if the petition was allowed. The matter stood settled between the parties already. It was held that it was in the interest of justice if the said FIR and the proceedings arising thereunder were quashed. The Court ordered accordingly. [Pankaj Gupta v. State of H.P.,  2018 SCC OnLine HP 425, dated 11.4.2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sandeep Sharma, J., decided a criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, wherein the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants were quashed in the light of settlement between the parties.

The appellants were accused under Sections 147, 149, 323, 506, 452, 427, and 382 IPC. The case arose out of scuffle between appellants and the respondents. Parties to the case submitted before the Court that they have amicably compromised the matter and the concerned FIR and proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed.

The question before the Court was whether it can quash criminal proceedings in light of settlement between the parties. The Court referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court and observed that inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC are different from power to compound offence under Section 320. Under Section 482, the High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings if the parties have settled the matter, even in those cases which are not compoundable. However, such power is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the parties have amicably settled the matter among themselves and such compromise being found genuine, the Court held that it was a fit case where the FIR and proceedings arising therefrom, were liable to be quashed.

Hence, the petition was allowed and the FIR and criminal proceedings arising therefrom pending adjudication before the trial court, were quashed. [Rajesh Thakur v. Hem Chand, 2018 SCC OnLine HP 336, dated 27.3.2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Ajay Mohan Goel, J., allowed a criminal petition filed by the accused-petitioner praying for quashing of FIR registered under Sections 353 and 506 IPC as well as the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

The petitioner submitted that the issue which led to registration of the FIR, stood amicably resolved between the complainant and the petitioner. Further, the complainant stated before the Court that a compromise was arrived at between the parties as per which the complainant submitted that she was no more interested in pursuing the case against the petitioner. She categorically stated that she had no objection in case the FIR and consequential proceedings against the petitioner are quashed. She submitted that she entered into the compromise out of her own free will and not under threat or coercion. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, and the State had no objection in case the petition was allowed and the FIR was quashed.

The Court considered the submissions made by and on behalf of the parties and was of the considered view that since an amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties and since the complainant was no more interested in pursuing the case against the petitioner, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner as well as consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Orders were passed accordingly. [Ved Prakash v. State of H.P., 2018 SCC OnLine HP 273, dated 21.3.2018]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The 3-judge Bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and AM Khanwilkar and Dr. DY Chandrachud, JJ came to the rescue of actress Priya Prakash Varrier, who shot into limelight after her ‘wink’ video went viral, by staying criminal proceedings against her in some states on the grounds that a song from her Malayalam film “Oru Adaar Love” allegedly hurt religious sentiments of the Muslim community. The Bench also granted similar relief to the director of the movie .

Besides staying the existing criminal proceedings, the bench also restrained all state governments from registering any further FIRs against the actress and the director with regard to the promotional video.

The 18-year-old Priya Prakash Varrier had sought protection from an FIR lodged on complaints alleging that the lyrics of the song ‘Manikya Malaraya Poovi’ from the movie was “offensive” and had “violated the religious sentiment of a particular community.

The plea said the claims that it hurt religious sentiments of the Muslim community are

“without any basis and what is hard to fathom is that a song which has been in existence for the past 40 years, which was written, sung and cherished by the Muslim community in Kerala is now being treated as an insult to the Prophet and his wife…. It is submitted that a song, which …. has been cherished by more than one crore Muslim population of Kerala, cannot suddenly offend the religious sentiments of the Muslim community”

Source: PTI

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of S.P. Garg, J., dismissed a criminal leave petition before it, preferred by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for leave to appeal against an acquittal.

The arguments advanced by the petitioner were that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence before it in correct perspective. Further, that the investigating agency had issued summons and were duly served on the respondent by speed post which the respondent had ignored. The petitioner further argued that the trial court had failed to consider the statutory presumption of service of summons sent by speed post as prescribed under Section 27 of the General Clause Act, coupled with Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Further, it was alleged that the respondent was avoiding appearing as he was involved in a serious case under Section 135 of the Customs Act.

The Court upon appreciation of evidence noted that the petitioner had not attempted to deliver the summons to the respondent directly at any point. Also they relied exclusively on tracking reports to make the case, while to who the summons was being delivered was not clear at any point. The impugned judgment also had recorded that the summons were delivered as per tracking reports on 14.09.2016, while the date of appearance mentioned therein was 13.09.2016. The Court reiterated that before initiating criminal proceedings against the respondent, the investigating agency was duty bound to ensure that the summons had been duly served and that he had deliberately or intentionally avoided appearing. Petition dismissed. [Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raju Arora, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7070, decided on 05.02.2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: While deciding a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, a Single Judge Bench comprising of K.N. Phaneendra, J. quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner, giving him the benefit of the acquittal of other accused persons.

The petitioner along with other accused was charged under Sections 143, 341, 506, 326, 307, 120B read with 149 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations against the other accused persons who were acquitted and the petitioner were one and the same. They were inter-twined with each other and there were no distinct and separate allegations against the petitioner so as to try him separately. He prayed that the benefit of acquittal of other accused persons should be extended to the petitioner.

The High Court referred to a few Supreme Court decisions to discuss the question whether such benefit as prayed for by the petitioner could be extended to him. The Court also perused the record to find that the allegations against the petitioner and other accused persons who were acquitted were one and the same and were inseparable in nature. The Court was of the opinion that in such a case, the benefit of acquittal of other accused persons could be extended to the petitioner as well; no purpose would be served even if the petitioner was tried before the Trial Court and it would be a futile exercise. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the proceedings pending against the petitioner were quashed. [Hassan v. State of Karnataka, WP No. 55102 of 2017 (GM-RES), order dated December 14, 2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gauhati High Court: The High Court recently through a common judgment disposed of two criminal petitions under Section 482 CrPC quashing the FIRs under Sections 418/420/423/406 IPC. The common arguments in both the petitions by the counsel were that the allegations in the FIR were purely civil in nature and therefore, the FIRs deserve to be quashed.

On hearing the arguments, the Court revisited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC, (2006) 6 SCC 736 wherein the Court has taken notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases clearly indicating the fact that civil law remedies usually fail to protect the interests of lenders/creditors and criminal prosecution is rampantly used in pressuring the other party for settlement of dispute.

The Court further examined the law on the point as laid down by the Apex Court in Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 6 SCC 384. In this case, it has been held that the purpose of registering an FIR is to set the machinery of criminal investigation into motion, which culminates with filing of the police report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code. The Court has explained that there cannot be two FIRs for the same offence in the same incident. However, there will be different FIRs in case of separate incidents, but same offence. The Supreme Court in this judgment has highlighted the need of examining the safeguards provided in Section 154 CrPC that are akin to principle of double jeopardy.

Hitesh Kumar Sarma, J. in the light of the judgments of Apex Court observed that in the present cases, when the first set of selection of tenderers was made it was fair and in accordance with Rules and informant had no grievance as far as the selection of highest bidders was concerned. The Court observed that petitioners had chosen a different set of tenderer after the withdrawal of previously selected tendered and this may or may not be an arbitrary decision and this very question doesn’t even arise in the petitions. The Court went on to hold that when a right is vested in an authority to select a tenderer, the criminal offence can’t be made out of it on the ground that by exercising the option of selecting a tenderer revenue loss has been caused to the State.

Finally, keeping in mind what has been held in Binod Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 10 SCC 663, the Court reiterated the principle of law that criminal proceedings are not a shortcut for other remedies and since no case of cheating is made out in any of the FIRs, the petitions are allowed and FIRs are quashed. [Pranita Das v. State of Assam, 2017 SCC OnLine Gau 716 , decided on 05.09.2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: The petitioner was working as the sub-inspector and it had been alleged that he went into the house of a subordinate lady employee in the night, misbehaved with her and acted in a manner that outraged her modesty. Against the same allegation, a criminal case as well as a departmental enquiry was instituted against him.

The contention of the petitioner before the Writ Court was that the allegations made in the departmental enquiry and in the criminal case are identical in nature and, therefore, for the same set of allegation both the proceedings cannot go together. The petition was dismissed by the Court and appeal to the dismissal was presented before the High Court.

After hearing both the parties, the High Court concluded that there was no error in judgment of the Writ Court. The Division Bench observed that the criminal case doesn’t involve any complicated question or any issues pertaining to mixed question of law and fact. The question involved is simple and petition doesn’t need any reconsideration, the Court observed. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. [Chandra Shekhar Kushwaha v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2017 SCC OnLine MP 139, decided on 08.02.2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: While deciding the present case wherein the accused had been charged under Sections 452 and 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 for trespassing into the room of the victim, wrongfully restraining her and pouring kerosene oil on her when she refused to marry the accused, the Division Bench of Rajiv Sharma and Sureshwar Thakur, JJ., noted how the police in the inquest report, the statement, recovery memo and dying declaration had mentioned separately the caste of the accused and the victim. Holding the practice to be impermissible, the Court stated that the colonial legacy of mentioning the caste in the criminal proceedings should be done away with and as a public policy caste system should be shunned wholly.

The Court further observed that the Constitution guarantees a casteless and classless society, as right to live with dignity is an integral part of the Fundamental Right to Life. The Court further noted that how the Founding Fathers of the Indian Constitution had a faith that the caste system which had no scientific, intellectual and logical basis will come to an end with the passage of time, however it has still lingered on even though it is against the very basic tenets of the Constitution. The Court thereby issued directions to the Principal Secretary (Home) for the Government of Himachal Pradesh to issue instructions to the investigating officers to do away with the practice of mentioning the caste of the accused, victims and witnesses in recovery memos, FIR’s, seizure memos, inquest papers and other forms prescribed under the CrPC and Punjab Police Rules. [Krishan Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2016 SCC OnLine HP 2130, decided on September 16, 2016]