Category: Cr P C

Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 – Sections 2 and 3 – Quashing of FIR – Final report was filed by the investigation officer stating that no case was made out to proceed against the appellant for the alleged offences – Final report having been accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, nothing more requires to be adjudicated upon in the present matter – Appeal disposed of.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHMOOD ALI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Held, although a person working in a Nationalised Bank is a public servant, yet the provisions of Section 197 of the CrPC would not be attracted at all as Section 197 is attracted only in cases where the public servant is such who is not removable from his service save by or with the sanction of the Government

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. SREENIVASA REDDY — Appellant Vs. RAKESH SHARMA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Quashing of FIR – Rape – Victim has not furnished any information in regard to the date and time of the commission of the alleged offence – Investigation is over and charge sheet is ready to be filed before the competent court – Although the allegations levelled in the FIR do not inspire any confidence more particularly in the absence of any specific date, time, etc. of the alleged offences – Quashed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IQBAL @ BALA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.…

If the entire case of the prosecution is believed or accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of dacoity punishable under Section 395 of the IPC is made out – None of the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 365, 342 and 506 respectively of the IPC are disclosed on plain reading of the FIR – FIR is nothing but abuse of the process of law – FIR quashed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HAJI IQBAL @ BALA THROUGH S.P.O.A. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala,…

Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely – FIR quashed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SALIB @ SHALU @ SALIM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.…

Quashing of FIR – Gang Rape – By just naming the appellant-accused in the FIR, offence cannot be said to have been committed by him – If any particular role is attributed or some kind of active participation is alleged in relation to the alleged offence, then it would be a different scenario – FIR quashed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HAJI IQBAL @ BALA THROUGH S.P.O.A. — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala,…

An Authorized Officer under the PMLA, 2002 is not duty bound to follow the rigor of Section 41A of the CrPC, 1973 as against the binding conditions under Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 – – When an arrestee is forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 19(3) of the PMLA, 2002 no writ of Habeus Corpus would lie — Section 167 of the CrPC, 1973 is a bridge between liberty and investigation performing a fine balancing act

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V. SENTHIL BALAJI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and M. M.…

Summoning of additional accused – At the stage of summoning an accused, there has to be a prima facie satisfaction of the Court – Evidence which was there before the Court was of an eye witness who has clearly stated before the Court that a crime has been committed, inter alia, by the revisionist- Appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANDEEP KUMAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Criminal…

You missed