Cause Title : Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs State Of U.P. & Ors., Supreme Court Of India, Criminal Appeal No(S). 2060 Of 2022
Date of Judgment/Order : November 28, 2022
Corum : Ajay Rastogi; J., C.T. Ravikumar; J.
Citied:
- Vineet Kumar and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2017) 13 SCC 369
- State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
- Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Background
An FIR was lodged against the accused and a charge sheet was filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 448, 387 IPC. approached the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of the FIR/Charge Sheet. As the High Court dismissed it, they approached the Apex Court.
Judgment
In appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court has not examined as to what was the complaint and how the present accused are, in any manner, concerned with the so-called alleged commission of crime.
The SC observed that the Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. These were :-
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
The SC quashing the FIR and all the consequential proceeding against the Appellants held that the present case is fully covered by categories (1) and (3).
Comments
Post a Comment