Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Karuna Nand Bajpayee and Ifaqat Ali Khan, JJ. dismissed a petition seeking quashing of a First Information Report filed against the petitioner for offences committed under Sections 148, 307, 353 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 7 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The Court observed that grounds for quashing of FIR are well-settled, and thus in such cases court must refrain itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into details of the case. It was noted that all the contentions raised by the petitioner’s counsel related to the determination of disputed questions of fact which may be adequately discerned either through proper investigation or adjudicated by the trial court. The ambit of an investigation into the alleged offence is an independent area of operation and does not call for interference except in rarest of rare cases. Relying on Ajit Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2006 SCC OnLine All 1409 it was opined that operational liberty to collect sufficient material, if any, cannot be scuttled prematurely by any uncalled for overstepping of the Court. 

The Court held that perusal of the case records, prima facie, made out the offence alleged and there appeared to be sufficient ground for investigation in the case. In view thereof, prayer for quashing FIR was refused. However, it was directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested unless credible evidence against him is collected by the Investigating Officer.[Umar Mohd. v. State of U.P, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 330 of 2019, Order dated 08-01-2019]

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

Jammu & Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Janak Raj Kotwal, J., dismissed a petition filed under Section 561-A CrPC. to quash the criminal proceeding under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 120-B Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 pending before the Trial Court.

The petitioners (accused) had opened office of a Finance Company under the name and style as “Golden Land Development (India) Ltd,” in Jammu City and in due course of their business they duped the respondent and twenty others, who had deposited money with the said Company.

The quashing was sought on the merits of the case, primarily, on the ground that petitioners and the respondents of the alleged offences have had entered into a compromise by virtue of the compromise deed after the charge sheet was filed by the Crime Branch.

The matter of concern before the court was whether one respondent could be allowed to enter into a compromise deed on behalf of twenty other respondents.

The Court came to the conclusion that as only one person has been arrayed as the respondent, therefore, other victims cannot be said to have had entered into compromise on behalf of that respondent also nor that would have sufficed for the purpose of compounding the offences and hence the question of grant of permission to compound shall be considered only when made by all the respondents.[Vinod Mahajan v. State, 2018 SCC OnLine J&K 563, order dated 04-07-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J., decided a criminal petition filed for quashing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by the trial court for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein the said judgment and order was quashed in light of compromise between the parties.

The case of the petitioner was that subsequent to the passing of the above mentioned judgment, the petitioner had paid the entire amount in question to the complainant, and therefore he prayed that the impugned order should be quashed. The complainant was present before the Court and stated that he had received the entire amount in question and he had no objection if the said order passed against the petitioner is set aside.

The High Court held that it was not powerless in such situations and it had adequate powers not only under Section 397 read with 401 or Section 482 of CrPC, but also under Section 147 of the NI Act to accept the settlement entered into between the parties and quash the proceedings in the case against the accused. It was observed that such power have been conferred to subserve the ends of justice, however, it has to be exercised with circumspection. The Court further held that the present was not a case which could be stricto sensu said to be an offence against the State. Therefore, it was a case where the continuation of criminal case against the petitioner would put him to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him if the impugned judgment was not set aside. Accordingly, the Court ordered that the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by the trial court shall be quashed. [Inder Singh v. Sesu, 2018 SCC OnLine HP 272, decided on 23.3.2018]