{"id":300285,"date":"2023-08-29T11:00:29","date_gmt":"2023-08-29T05:30:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=300285"},"modified":"2023-08-29T10:30:31","modified_gmt":"2023-08-29T05:00:31","slug":"sc-observes-criminal-antecedents-accused-cannot-be-sole-consideration-decline-quash-proceedings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/29\/sc-observes-criminal-antecedents-accused-cannot-be-sole-consideration-decline-quash-proceedings\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Criminal antecedents of accused cannot be sole consideration to decline quashment of proceedings’; SC Observes"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court<\/span>: In a criminal appeal filed at the instance of the accused persons\/ appellants, against the Allahabad High Court's order, whereby the accused persons' petition to quash the First Information Report (‘FIR') against them for the offences under Sections 395<\/a>, 504<\/a>, 506<\/a> and 323<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (‘IPC') was declined, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala<\/span>* allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned order along with the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

In the matter at hand an FIR was registered against the accused persons, stating that when the informant and the respondents visited the accused persons house to place a request not to interfere with the lawful possession and ownership of the land in question belonging to the informant, the accused persons hurled abuses at the informant and other respondents. It was also alleged that the accused persons took away Rs. 2 lakhs from the informant on gun point. It was also alleged that the accused persons threatened to kill the informant’s family members and that they forcibly obtained informant's signature on a plain stamp paper. The accused persons preferred an application before the High Court for quashing the impugned FIR. However, the High Court declined the application. Hence, the present appeal.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision<\/p>\n

In relation to the offence of dacoity, the Court perused Section 390 and 391 and pointed towards essential ingredients for theft to amount to ‘robbery':<\/p>\n