‘Ends of justice would not be met by quashing FIRs’; Bombay HC refuses to exercise jurisdiction under S. 482, CrPC
“The process of law would take its own course through the trial”
“The process of law would take its own course through the trial”
SBI suffered losses of Rs. 6.13 Crores approximately, causing a substantial injury to the public exchequer and consequently, hampering the public interest…“Economic offences affect the economy of the country as a whole and pose a serious threat to the financial health of the country. If such offences are viewed lightly, the confidence and trust of the public will be shaken.”
To attract the offence under Section 3061 of the Penal Code, 1860, clear mens rea to commit the offence must be established on applicant-accused’s part, as it requires active/direct act, leading the deceased to commit suicide.
The applicant bore sole responsibility for any adverse effects arising from the inability to cross-examine the prosecutrix due to repeated delay tactics.
“Whether the proceeding against the accused shall be called as prosecution or it would be a persecution. Whether it’s a persecution or be it a prosecution but in anyway it must come to an end within a reasonable period.”
Section 311 CrPC allows the court to recall a witness if it is essential for a just decision of the case, but such power must be exercised judiciously and with caution.
“Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the community, but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a “settlement” through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means”
“The conduct of the litigants to keep the dispute alive for mala fide reasons has the tendency of keeping the docket of the Courts heavy to the detriment of other litigants whose cases have been pending for years together.”
Rajasthan High Court held that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC do not extend to interfering with orders of the District Collector acting under Section 6-A of the RBA Act in a quasi-judicial capacity.
Section 23 of the Kerala Protection of Riverbanks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 states that whoever transports sand, without complying with the provisions of the Act shall be punished, and the vehicle used for the transportation be liable to be seized by the Police or Revenue Officials.
The Court stated that applicant’s inclusion of specific dress details not related to the actual incident suggests an intent to attribute the incident to a particular group, potentially inciting enmity and disrupting harmony.
“Inherent jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR/ complaint should be exercised sparingly, with care and caution in rarest of rare cases.”
The Court stated that as per the amended definition of rape, any sexual intercourse or act, by the husband with his wife not below the age of fifteen years is not a rape, therefore, consent is immaterial.
Where the wife is set to implicate the entire family of the husband in a criminal case, it is to be expected that through her lawyer she would get a complaint properly drafted making some specific allegations against each of the family members.
Allahabad High Court said that, while deciding an application under Section 482 CrPC, it can only examine whether the case for trial of the accused person is made out on the basis of prosecution allegations and the material collected in support thereof.
“Investigating Agency seeks proclamation order from the court concerned so as to exert the pressure upon the person concerned and the court concerned without taking care of specific procedure issues proclamation under Sections 82/83 CrPC in a cursory and mechanical manner.”
The Supreme Court was deciding the appeal against Allahabad High Court’s order wherein it had held that the petitioner could not continue to challenge the proceedings when he had not raised objections to the charge sheet or cognizance order in his first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The present case is “nothing but the assimilation of personal and political antipathies, more precisely, a politically oriented-animosity, which makes the petitioner’s prosecution malicious.”
Dismissing the revision petition filed for quashing of FIR and criminal proceeding against the petitioner/husband, the Court held that prima facie case of a cognizable offence of cruelty can be make out against the petitioner/husband therefore inherit power of High Court under S. 482 CrPC cannot be exercised.