Quashing of FIR, Summoning Orders, Etc.

Quashing of FIR, Summoning Orders, Etc.

When an FIR gets lodged, it got to reach at its logical conclusion through the different stages of legal actions on the part of the police, and proceedings before the Court, such as investigation, arrests (if applicable), bails, trial, conviction, acquittal, sentencing/ imprisonment/ fine (if awarded). The Case being a police/ State Case, the parties, i.e. the Complainant and the Accused do not have much control over it, except that they can move the higher Courts and/ or the Court concerned if they feel aggrieved with continuance/ proceeding of the aforementioned stages.

There is however, an inbuilt provision in the law i.e. in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein the law provides for it that the parties, i.e the Complainant and the Accused can seek foreclosure of the entire controversy, and escape the aforementioned stages/ logical conclusion. The parties, i.e the Complainant and the Accused can settle the dispute between/ amongst them and get the Criminal proceeding arising out of an FIR compounded before the concerned Magistrate. In some cases, the parties can do it own their own and simply get their statement recorded before the Court. In other, the Parties however, have to seek permission of the court before doing so. Section-320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, titled as “compounding of offences” deals with this issue.

The law however, does not permit compounding of the offences, not covered under S-320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

As they say, the law cannot be straightjacketed. In other words, legislatures cannot legislate on each and every aspect, the law being very dynamic by its very nature. Also, the legislatures have never intended the Courts to act in a robotic fashion, strictly on the lines of what they legislate. Hence, the High Courts were equipped with inherent powers, under Section-482 of the Code of Criminal procedural, 1973, to do the justice in any unforeseen eventuality. The Article-226 of the Constitution of India also has such provision, giving the High Court of a State an ample power to issue Writs/ commands of several nature, like Writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, etc. Therefore, the people routinely approach High Courts seeking the latter’s indulgence under S-482 & Art-226 seeking quashing of FIRs.

We have numerous Judgments and Orders passed by High Courts all over India and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, granting, as also rejecting the Applications seeking Quashing of FIR in 498A. For convenience sake, we have divided the subject in hand in the following categories.

To know more about Quashing Of FIR, go on clicking on the following links

A Short Note
Applicable Provisions of Law- Under the Code Of Criminal procedure, 1973
Which Court to be approached for quashing of FIR
Who can approach the High Court for quashing of FIR
Grounds for quashing of FIR- In the cases where the parties intend to settle the matter | Where the Applicant got falsely implicated by the police/ Individual complainant.
Relevant Legal Provisions
Judgments & Orders- Vital Findings on Quashing of FIR.
Format of Quashing Petition- In A Matrimonial Matter.

J Judgments: Quashing of FIR, Summoning Orders, Etc.

1960

R. P. Kapur Vs. State Of Punjab- 5JB Supreme Court Of India Judgment- 25.03.1960- Criminal Appeal No. 217 of 1959- 1960 AIR 862/ 866-1960 SCR (3) 311- Quashing of FIR- Quashing of Proceedings -Inherent power of High Court- When to be exercised- Held that no case for quashing the proceedings was made out.- The inherent ‘Jurisdiction of the High Court could be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.- Thefollowing are some categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction could and should be exercised to quash proceedings:- (i) where it manifestly appears that there was a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;-(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute or do not make out the offence alleged; and (iii)where either there was no legal evidence adduced in support of the charge or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly failed to prove the charge. In exercising its jurisdiction under s. 561-A of the Code the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in the case is reliable or not. In the present case there was no legal bar to the institution of the proceedings or to their continuance; the allegations made in the first information report did constitute the offences alleged and it could not be contended that on the face of the record the charge was unsustainable [Full PDF Judgments].

1975

N. M. Thomas- State Of Kerala & Anr. Vs. N. M. Thomas & Ors.- Appeal Civil 1160 Of 1974-SC-19.09.1975- Bench: Ray, A.N. (CJ) & Khanna, Hans Raj & Mathew, Kuttyil Kurien Beg & M. Hameedullah & Krishnaiyer, V.R. & Gupta, A.C. & Fazalali, Syed Murtaza, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Quashing Of Legislations- Kerala State Subordinate Services [Full PDF Judgment].

1976

ADM [Additional District Magistrate], Jabalpur Vs. S. S. Shukla– Supreme Court Of India Judgment-28.04.1976- 1976 AIR 1207 1976=1976 SCC (2) 521- 1976 SCR 172- Article 226 Of Constitution Of India- Article 21 Of Constitution Of India- Section-482 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure- Habeas Corpus Judgments- Fundamental Rights- Rights To Life And Liberty- Quashing Of Legislation Judgment- Quashing-MISA, 1971 [Full PDF Judgments].

1977

L. Muniswamy- State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy & Others- (1977) 2 SCC 699- 1977 AIR 1489- Supreme Court Of India Judgment- 03.03.1977- Criminal Appeal Nos. 345-346 of 1976- Y V Chandrachud, J- Inherent power of the High Court to quash proceedings at the stage of framing of charges–Explained.- Observed, that the wholesome power U/S-482 CrPC entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The court observed in this case that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature [Full PDF Judgments].

1982

Swapan Kumar Guha [State Of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha & Ors.]- Civil Appeal No. 1129 of 1981- SC-02.02.1982- 1982 AIR 949- 1982 SCC (1) 561- Condition precedent to commencement of investigation- Police have no unfettered discretion to commence investigation- Power to investigate- quashing of investigation- quashing of proceedings- quashing of FIR [Full PDF Judgment].

1984

A.R. Antulay Vs. Ramadas Sriniwas Nayak– Supreme Court Of India-16.02.1984- 1984 (2) SCC 500= 1984 AIR 718- Quashing of summoning order judgments- article 226 of constitution of india judgments- section [Full PDF Judgments].

1990

Bhajan Lal: State of Haryana and Others Versus. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others– SC-21.11.1990- 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; 1992 Cri LJ 527; AIR 1992 SC 604- Quashing-FIR [Full PDF Judgments].

1991

P. P. Sharma- State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P. P. Sharma- Supreme Court Of India Judgment – 02.04.1991- Criminal Appeal Nos. 527-28 of 1990- AIR 1991 SC 1260- Constitution of India, 1950: Art-226 High Court- When and under what circumstances would be justified to quash charge sheet before cognizance of offence taken by criminal court.- Code of Criminal Procedure: S- 173, S-194, S-197- Investigation- Powers of Police- Interference by Court- when arises.- Held, (1) The High Court fell into grave error and acted with patent illegality in quashing the criminal proceedings on the basis of the findings which were wholly wayward.[29D] R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab,[1960] 3 SCR 388, referred to.- (2) The High Court erred in appreciating the annexures/documents, which were produced by the respondents along with their writ petitions, and further erred in delving into disputed questions of fact while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.- (3) By treating the annexures which were neither part of the police reports nor were relied upon by the Investigating Officer, as evidence, the High Court converted itself into a trial court. The High Court could not have assumed this jurisdiction and put an end to the process of investigation and trial provided under the law.- (4) The question of mala-fide exercise of power assumed significance only when the criminal prosecution was initiated on extraneous considerations and for an unauthorised purpose.- (5) The allegations of mala-fide against the informant based on the facts after the lodging of the FIR were of no consequence and could not be the basis for quashing the proceedings.- (6) There was no material whatsoever in this case to show that on the date when the FIR was lodged by R.K. Singh he was activated by bias or had any reason to act maliciously. The dominant purpose of registering the case against the respondents was to have an investigation done into the allegations contained in the FIR and in the event of there being sufficient material in support of the allegations to present the charge-sheet before the court. There was no material to show that the dominant object of registering the case was the character assassination of the respondents or to harass and humiliate them. When the information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, the mala-fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation which decides the fate of the accused person. State of Bihar v. J.A.C Saldhana & Ors.,[1980] 2SCR 16and State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, J.T. (1990)4 S.C. 655, referred to.- (7) When the police report under section 173 Cr.P.C. had to go through the judicial scrutiny, it was not open to the High Court to find fault with the same on the ground that certain documents were not taken into consideration by the investigating officer.- (8) Simply because the Investigating Officer, while acting bona fide ruled out certain documents as irrelevant, it was no ground to assume that he acted mala-fide.- (9) The sanction under section 197 Cr. P.C. was not an empty formality. It was essential that the provisions therein were observed with complete strictness. The object of obtaining sanction was that the authority concerned should be able to consider for itself the material before the investigating officer, before it came to the conclusion that the prosecution in the circumstances be sanctioned or forbidden. To comply with the provisions of section 197 it must be proved that the sanction was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence charged. It was desirable that the facts should be referred to on the face of the sanction.- (10) S- 197 did not require the sanction to be in any particular form. If the facts constituting the offence charged were not shown on the fact of the sanction, it was open to the prosecution, if challenged, to prove before court that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority. It should be clear from the form of the sanction that the sanctioning authority considered the relevant material placed before it and after a consideration of all the circumstances of the case sanctioned the prosecution.- (11) In the present case the investigation was complete on the date of sanction and police reports had been filed before the Magistrate. The sanctioning authority had specifically mentioned in the sanction order that the papers and the case diary had been taken into consideration before granting the sanctions.- (12) Case diary was a complete record of the police investigation. It contained total material in support or otherwise of the allegations. The sanctioning authority having taken the case diary into consideration before thegrant of sanction, it could not be said that there was no application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority.- (13) The findings of the High Court that no offence was made out against the respondents under the Essential Commodities Act was also based on the appreciation of `the annexures’ and other disputed facts on the record and as such was untenable for the same reasons.- Per K. Ramaswamy, J.- (1) Grossest error of law has been committed by the High Court in making pre-trial of a criminal case in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction U/Art- 226- State of West Bengal v. Swaran Kumar, [1982] 3 SCR 121 and Madhaorao J. Scindia v. Sambhaji Rao, [1988] 1 SCC 692 distinguished.- (2) Quashing the Charge Sheet even before cognizanceis taken by a criminal Court amounts to “killing a stillborn child”. Till the criminal court takes cognizance ofthe offence there is no criminal proceeding pending. [48C] 6- (3) The arms of the High Court are long enough, when exercising its prerogative discretionary power under Art.226of the constitution, to reach injustice wherever it is founding the judicial or quasi-judicial process of any Court or Tribunal or authority within its jurisdiction. But it is hedged with self imposed limitation.- (4) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives to thepolice unfettered power to investigate all cases where they suspect a cognizable offence has been committed. In an appropriate case an aggrieved person can always seek a remedy by invoking the power of the High Court under Art-226 of the Constitution. If the court could be convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by a police officer mala fide, a mandamus could be issued restraining the investigator to misuse his legal powers. S.N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari & Ors., [1970] 3 SCR945; State of Bihar & Anr. v. J.A.C. Saldanha & Ors., [1980]1 SCC 554; State of West Bengal v. Sampat Lal,[1985] 1 SCC317; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Purshottam Dass Jhunjunwala & Ors., [1983] 1 SCC 9 and Abhinandan Jha & Ors.v. Dinesh Mishra, [1967] 3 SCR 668, referred to. – (5) The function of the judiciary in the course ofinvestigation by the police should be complementary and full freedom should be accorded to the investigator to collectthe evidence connecting the chain of events leading to the discovery of the truth, viz., the proof of the commission of the crime. [37D] King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 76 Indian Appeals203 and Jamuna Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, 3 SCC 774(1974), referred to.- (6) The determination of a plea of mala fide involves two questions, namely (i) whether there is a personal bias or an oblique motive; and (ii) whether the administrative action is contrary to the objects, requirements and conditions of a valid exercise of administrative power.- (7) A complainant when he lodges a report to the Station House Officer accusing a person of commission of anoffence, often may be person aggrieved, but rarely a probonopublico. Therefore, inherent animosity is licit and byitself is not tended to cloud the veracity of the accusation suspected to have been committed, provided it is based on factual foundation.- (8) The person against whom mala fides or bias was imputed should be impleaded co-nominee as a party respondent to the proceedings and given an opportunity to meet those allegations. In his/her absence no enquiry into those allegations would be made. Otherwise it itself is violative of the principles of natural justice, as it amounts to condemning a person without an opportunity. Admittedly,both R.K. Singh and G.N. Sharma were not impleaded.- (9) The finding of the High Court that the mala fides of the Investigating Officer was established by the subsequent conduct of his participation in the writ proceedings was obviously illegal. When the investigation was subject matter of the challenge in the court, it would be obvious that the investigator alone was to defend the case; he had to file the counter affidavit and to appear inthe proceedings on behalf of the State. State of Bihar v. J.A. Saldana, AIR 1980 SC326.- (10) Before countenancing allegations of mala fides or bias it is salutory and an onerous duty and responsibility of the court not only to insist upon making specific and definite allegations of personal animosity against the Investigating Officer at the start of the investigation but also must insist to establish and prove then from the facts and circumstances to the satisfaction of the court.- (11) Mere assertion or a vague or bald statement of mala fides was not sufficient. It must be demonstrated either by admitted or proved facts and circumstances obtainable in a given case.- (12) Malice in law could be inferred from doing of wrongful act intentionally without any just cause or excuse or without there being reasonable relation to the purpose of the exercise of statutory power.- (13) Malice in law is not established from the omission to consider some documents said to be relevant to the accused. Equally, reporting the commission of a crime to the Station House Officer cannot be held to be a colourable exercise of power with bad faith or fraud on power.- (14) The findings of the High Court that F.I.R. got vitiated by the mala fides of the Administration and the charge sheets were the results of the mala fides of the informant or investigator, to say the least, was fantastic and obvious gross error of law. State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, J.T. (1990) 4 SC 655,referred to. – (15) An investigating officer who is not sensitive tothe constitutional mandates, may be prone to trample upon the personal liberty of a person when he is actuated by malafides. But the accused at the earliest should bring to the notice of the court of the personal bias and his reasonable belief that an objective investigation into the crime would not be had at the hands of the investigator by pleading and proving as of facts with necessary materials facts. If he stands by till the chargesheet was filed, it must be assumed that he had waived his objection. He cannot turn round after seeing the adverse report to plead the alleged malafides. [43H-44A] – (16) The finding of the High Court that the F.I.R.charge-sheet violated the constitutional mandate under Art.- 21 was without substance.- (17) The order of sanction is only an administrative act and not a quasi judicial nor alis involved. The order of sanction need not contain detailed reasons in support thereof. But the basic facts that constitute the offence must be apparent on the impugned order and the record must bear out the reasons in that regard.- (18) Filing of charge-sheet before the court without sanction per se is not illegal, not a condition precedent. At any time before taking cognizance of the offence it isopen to the competent authority to grant sanction and the prosecution is entitled to produce the order of sanction. State of U.P. v. R.K. Joshi,[1964] 3 SCR 71, referred to. – (19) Proper application of mind to the existence of aprima facie evidence of the commission of the offence isonly a pre-condition to grant or refuse to grant sanction.The question of giving an opportunity to the public servantat that stage does not arise.- (20) A perusal of the sanction order clearlyindicates that the Govt. appears to have applied its mind tothe facts placed before it and considered them and then granted sanction.- (21) The prior sanction by the appropriate Government is an assurance to a public servant to discharge his officialfunctions diligently, efficiently and honestly without fearor favour, without haunt of later harassment andvictimization, so that he would serve his best in theinterest of the public. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, [1970] 2 SCR 931, referred to.- (22) The public servant can only be said to act orpurported to act in the discharge of his official duty ifhis act or omission is such as to lie within the scope ofhis official duty. It is not every offence committed by a public servant that requires sanction for prosecution, nor even every act by him while he actually engaged under colourof his official duty that receives protection from prosecution. The offending act must be integrally connected with the discharge of duty and should not be fanciful orpretended. K. Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab,[1960] 2 SCR 89; Harihar Prasad v. State of Bihar, [1972] 3 SCR 89 and S B Saha v. Kochar [1980] 1 SCC 111.- (23) Before granting sanction the authority or the appropriate Govt. must have before it the necessary reportand the material facts which prima facie establish the commission of offence charged for and that the appropriate Government would apply their mind to those facts [Full PDF Judgment].

1994

Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab- SC- 11.03.1994-(1994) 3 SCC 569- Quashing of FIR- Observed, vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning [Full PDF Judgment].

1996

Gian Kaur Vs. The State Of Punjab- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 167 OF 1984-SC-21.03.1996, Bench: Verma, Jagdish Saran (J)& Ray, G.N. (J)& Singh N.P. (J) & Faizan Uddin (J) & Nanavati G.T. (J), Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 1996(2) SCC 648= 1996 AIR 946= JT 1996 (3) 339- Quashing of Legislation- Issue, Whether S-306 IPC is unconstirutional [Full PDF Judgment].

2002

Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal– Supreme Court Of India Judgment-25.08.2004- Crl.- 91 Of 2002- AIR 2004 Sc 4674- Cheating Case Judgments- Quashing Judgments- Quashing Of Summoning Order Judgment- [Full PDF Judgments].
Dilawar Babu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra- 2002 (2) SCC 135- Quashing of FIR [Full PDF Judgment].

2003

B.S. Joshi & Ors. State of Haryana & Anr., Appeal (Crl.) 383 Of 2003, Date Of Judgment: 13.03.2003, Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal & H.K. Sema, JJ, Supreme Court Of India, Citation: (2003) 4 SCC 675 [Full PDF Judgment].- Quashing- Settlement [Full Bench PDF Judgment].
Azadi Bachao Andolan [Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan]- SC-07.10.2003- Appeal (civil) 8161-8162 of 2003= Appeal (civil) 8163-8164 of 2003- (2003) 263 ITR 706 (SC)- Tax Matters- Quashing Of a CBDT Circular [Full PDF Judgment].
Nazir Khan And Others Vs. State Of Delhi- 2003 SCC (Crl.) 2033- AIR 2003 SC 4427- Quashing Of FIR- Bail- S-121-A IPC- Waging Of War Against The State [Full PDF Judgment].

2004

Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque- Criminal-No-1241 of 2004- Supreme Court Of India Judgment- 01.11.2004- Appeal (Crl.) 1241 of 2004- 2005 AIR(SC) 9= 2005(1) SCC 122- Quashing of FIR [Full PDF Judgment].
Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.- Writ Petition (Civil) 740 of 1986- SC-17.12.2004- Quashing of Legislation- Ultra Vires- When, a smaller bench can refer a matter to a larger bench. [Full PDF Judgment].

2006

Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P.- SC-07.07.2006-AIR 2006 SC 2522- Writ Petition(Crl.) 208 of 2004- Quashing of FIR- Writ of certiorari- Writ of mandamus- A live-in relationship between two consenting adults of heterosexual sex does not amount to any offence even though it may be perceived as immoral [Full PDF Judgment].

2007

Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal- Supreme Court Of India Judgment- 09.10.2007- Appeal (Crl.) 1392 of 2007-Supreme Court Of India Judgment- 09.10.2007- CJI,R. V. Raveendran & Dalveer Bhandari, J- Quashing- Petition U/S-482 CrPC- FIR U/S- 420/ 467- The dispute in question purely of civil nature- Observed, “The veracity of the facts alleged by the appellants and the respondents can only be ascertained on the basis of evidence and documents by a civil court of competent jurisdiction”.- Further observed, “In the facts and circumstances of this case, initiating criminal proceedings by the respondents against the appellants is clearly an abuse of the process of the court”- Ambit & Scope of the Powers of HC U/S-482 CrPC- Observed, “23. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts’ powers under Section 482 CrPC. Every High Court has inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code;- (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. – Observed, Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute- Further observed, “The powers possessed by the High Court U/S- 482 CrPC are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage- Case Referred, In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 [Full PDF Judgment].

2008

R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta & ors., SC-24.10.2008- Crl. A.No. 1694 OF 2008- (2009) 1 SCC 516-Quashing of Proceedings- Quashing of FIR-Inherent power [Full PDF Judgments].
Som Mittal vs Government of Karnataka, 2008 (3) SCC 753- Quashing of FIR [Full PDF Judgment].

2009

Vangaveeti Nagaiah [State of A.P. Vs. Vangaveeti Nagaiah]- 3JBSC-15.04.2009-Criminal Appeal No. 1190 OF 2003-AIR 2009 SC 2646- Quashing of Proceedings- Quashing of FIR [Full PDF Judgment].

2010

Babubhai Versus State of Gujarat-Supreme Court Of India Judgment-26.08.2010- Crl. Appeal-1599 of 2010- 2010-12-SCC-254- (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 336- Quashing of Second FIR- Cross FIR- Right of an accused to fair trial and fair investigation [Full PDF Judgments].

2011

Jasbir Kaur & Ors. Versus State & Anr., CRL.M.C. 1096/2011 & Crl.M.A. Nos. 2903-2904/2012, 2906- 2907/2012, , Judgment Dated- 29.11.2011, Bench: Manmohan, J, Delhi High Court -Quashing of FIR U/S-226 of the Constitution & S-482 of CrPC.- The FIR U/S- 406/498A/376/420/506/120B IPC [Full PDF Judgment].
Manubhai Ratilal Patel Ushaben Vs. State of Gujarat- Criminal Appeal No. 1572 Of 2012-Supreme Court Of India Judgment-28.09.2012- AIR 2013 SC 313 Detenu- detainee- Arestee-Confinee- Police Custody [PC]- Judicial Custody [JC]- S-167(2) CrPC- Art-21 of the Constitution- Detention beyond 60 days- Quashing of FIR- U/S- 467/ 468/ 471/ 409 IPC- stay on further investigation [Full PDF Judgment].

2012

Geeta Mehrotra and anr. Vs. State of U.P.-SC-17.10.2012- Criminal Appeal No. 1674 OF 2012-Quashing of Proceedings- Quashing of summoning Order-Inherent power-IPC-S-498A, 406, 341, 323- [Full PDF Judgment].

2013

Baljeet Singh (Dr.) Vs. State NCT Of Delhi & Anr.-W.P.- Crl.- 503 of 2013, DelHC- 02.05.2013- Bench: Pratibha Rani, J, Delhi High Court [Full PDF Judgment].- Judgments On Quashing Of FIR- Seeking Quashing of FIR [Full PDF Judgments].
Ravinder Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors, 2013 (9) SCC 245- Quashing of FIR [Full PDF Judgment].

2014

Arvind Kejriwal & Ors Versus Amit Sibal & Anr, Crl.M.C. 5245/2013, Judgment Dated: 16.01.2014, Bench: J.R. Midha, J, Delhi High Court- Issue, Challenge To Summoning Order in a defamation Case- [Full PDF Judgments].
Aveek Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal- Criminal Appeal No.902 Of 2004-SC-03.02.2014- Quashing of FIR- Obscenity Case-Boris Becker Case [Full PDF Judgment].
Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab- Criminal Appeal No.686/2014- 2014 6 SCC 466= 2014 (2) Crimes 27 (SC)- Quashing of FIR-Settlement- Compounding of Offence/ proceedings- Jurisdiction U/S-482 CrPC [Full PDF Judgments].

2015

Manik Taneja Versus State of Karnatka, Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2015, Judgment Dated: 20/01/2015, Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, J. & R. Banumathi J., Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 2015(1) JT 237: 2015(1) SCALE 484: 2015(1) SLT 657: 2015 CrLJ 1483: 2015(1) Crimes 221(SC): 2015(2) JCC 926: 2015(7) SCC 423: 2015(2) Supreme 121- Penal Code, 1860- Sections 353 & 506- Quashing of FIR [Full PDF Judgment].
Geeta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln. 2726/2014, Judgment Dated- 05/03/2015, Bench-Manmohan Singh, J, Citations- 2015(3) AD(Delhi) 322: 2015(149) DRJ 351- quashing of FIR- [Full PDF Judgment].
Priya Parameswaran Pillai Versus Union Of India And Ors., WP(C) 774/2015, Judgement Dated: 12.03.2015, Delhi High Court – Quashing Of Look Out Circular [LOC] by IB. [Full PDF Judgment].
Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India- Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 167 of 2012- AIR 2015 SC 1523- (2015) 5 SCC 1- Supreme Court Of India Judgment-24.03.2015- Quashing of FIR- Information Technology Act of 2000- Fundamental rights- Free speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a)- Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 [IT Act]- Section-66A- Fundamental right of Free Speech & Expression- Guaranteed under Article- 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, 1950- Rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 [Full PDF Judgments].
Samarth Mittal Versus Union Of India & Ors, W.P.(C) 6170/2015 & CM No.11211/2015, Judgment Dated: 06.07.2015, Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J, Delhi High Court- Issue, quashing of Administrative Order/ Govt. Policy [Full PDF Judgments].
Shaurya Gulati Versus Central Board of Secondary Education, W.P.(C) 6170/2015 & CM No.11211/2015, Judgment Dated: 06.07.2015, Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J, Delhi High Court -Issue, quashing of Administrative Order/Govt. Policy- Held, “There is no rationale behind prohibiting the revaluation of the theory paper of Physical Education.” [Full PDF Judgments].
Pradip Burman Vs. Income Tax Office- Crl.M.C. 2467 Of 2015- Delhc- 02.12.2015- Bench- Suresh Kait, Delhi High Court- Quashing Of IT Complaint [Full PDF Judgments].Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand-SC-13.08.2010- Criminal Appeal No. 1512 OF 2010- (2010) 7 SCC 667- Rampant misuse of S-498A IPC- Quashing of Proceedings- Quashing of FIR- [Full PDF Judgment].
Rahul Gandhi Versus. Dr. Subramanian Swamy, Crl.M.C. 3332/2014, Judgment Dated-07.12.2015, Sunil Gaur, J, Delhi High Court- Quashing of summoning Order issued against Smt. Sonia Gandhi & Mr. Rahul Gandhi declined [Full PDF Judgments].
Shrikant Tamrakar and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, Criminal Case No.2112/2015, Judgment Dated- 10.12.2015, Bench: C.V. Sirpurkar, J, MP High Court- Jabalpur Bench- Sought Quashing of FIR U/S-226 of the Constitution & S-482 of CrPC. [Full PDF Judgments].

2016

Sandeep Bera Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal & Ors., W. P. 24471 (W) of 2016, Judgment Dated: 12.05.2016, Bench: Dipankar Datta, J., Calcutta High Court/ Supreme Court Of India- Quashing Of Govt. Policies- Subversion of the rule of law.- Mixing of politics with religion- Arbitrary Decisions [Full PDF Judgments].
Makemytrip (India) Pvt Ltd Versus Union Of India & Ors, W.P.(C) 525 of 2016, Judgment Dated: 01.09.2016, Bench: S. Muralidhar & Vibhu Bakhru, JJ, Delhi High Court- Issue, Challenge to the powers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) of arrest, investigation and assessment of service tax under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 ( ̳FA‘)- quashing of the criminal case [Full PDF Judgment].
Ghulam Mohi-Ud-Din Wani Vs. State Of Jammu & Kashmir- Criminal Appeal Nos.1275-1276 Of 2014- SC- 15.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
Janardan Vasant Patil Vs State of Maharashtra- Writ Petition No. 1525 OF 2011- BomHC- 16.09.2016-Legislation, Policy & Rule-Quashing Of Administrative Order Rejecting-Plea To Form Police Association [Full PDF Judgment].
Sai Dr. Versus The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1381 Of 2015, Judgment Dated: 27.09.2016, Bench: A. V. Nirgude & V.L. Achliya, JJ, Delhi High Court/ Supreme Court Of India- Quashing Of Criminal Complaint [Full PDF Judgments].
Daljit Singh & Ors. Versus Sukhwinder Kaur & Anr., Crl. Misc. No. M-8742 of 2015(O&M), Judgment Dated: 03.10.2016, Bench: Anita Chaudhary, JJ, Punjab & Haryana High Court: Quashing Of FIR- S-406 & 498A IPC [Full PDF Judgments].
Ashish Khetan Vs. Union Of India And Anr., Writ Petition-Criminal-No. 135/2016,SC-03.10.2016- Quashing Of Legislation- IPC- S-295A-Ultra Vires Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution [Full PDF Judgement].
Vichar Kranti International- State Of Jammu And Kashmir Versus Vichar Kranti International & Anr., Civil Appeal No .10286 Of 2016, Judgment Dated: 21.10.2016, Bench: T S Thakur, AM Khanwilkar & Dr. D Y Chandrachud, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Quashing of Govt. Policy- Direction to reconsider [Full PDF Judgment].
Cipla Ltd.- Union Of India & Ors. M/S. Cipla Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 329 Of 2005, Judgment Dated: 21.10.2016, Bench: Madan B. Lokur & R.K. Agrawal, JJ, Supreme Court Of India: Quashing Of Central Govt. Notification, Fixing Retail Price Of Drug Formulations- Pharma Companies [Full PDF Judgment].
Arvind Kejriwal-Case No.-No.- 6779 of 2016-Lucknow HC-21.10.2016- Quashing of FIR [Full PDF Judgment].

2017

Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Vs. State of Gujarat- (2017) 9 SCC 641- Quashing of FIR- Quashing Of Criminal Complaint [Full PDF Judgment].

2018

Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.- Criminal Appeal No. 12 Of 2018- SC-05.01.2018-Condition precedent to commencement of investigation- Police have no unfettered discretion to commence investigation- Power to investigate- quashing of investigation- quashing of proceedings- quashing of FIR [Full PDF Judgment].

Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke Vs State of Maharashtra and Another- Criminal Appeal No. 765 OF 2018- SC-17.05.2018- Quashing of FIR- S-306 IPC- Abetment to commit suicide- [Full PDF Judgment].
H Srinivas [State by Lokayuktha Police Vs. H. Srinivas- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.775 of 2018- SC-18.05.2018- Quashing of criminal proceedings- irregularity and illegality [Full PDF Judgment].

2019

Laxmi Narayan- State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Laxmi Narayan and others- Criminal Appeal No.349 Of 2019- SC-05.03.2019- Quashing of FIR- Based on Mutual Settlement- Mutual Compromise- Mutual Agreement [Full PDF Judgment].
Dharani Sugars And Chemicals Ltd. Versus Union Of India & Ors.- Transfer Petition (Civil) No.1399 Of 2018- Writ Petition (Civil) No.339 Of 2018-SC-02.04.2019- Quashing of Executive Order- RBI Circular- Banking Regulation Act [Full PDF Judgment].
Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors- Criminal Appeal No. 675 OF 2019- Supreme Court Of India Judgment- 15.04.2019- Observed, “mere pendency of a civil suit is not an answer to the question as to whether a case under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 IPC is made out against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 or not.”- Further Observed, “…in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable (Incorrectly typed. Cognizance ought to be the correct word) is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.” Held, “In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC) because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties…” [Full PDF Judgment].
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr.- Criminal Appeal No. 1165 of 2019- Supreme Court Of India Judgment- 21.08.2019- Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J- Quashing- Petition U/S-482 CrPC- FIR U/S-376, 417, 504 & 506(2)- Rape- promise to marry- Held, The allegations on the face of the FIR do not hence establish the commission of the offences alleged- Case referred, Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal [Full PDF Judgment].

Kindly CLICK HERE, call our helpline at (+91) 98-712-712-05, or e-mail us at info@hellocounsel.com if you wish to talk to a lawyer or are facing any other Legal Issue and want to have Legal Consultations with the empaneled Lawyers at Hello Counsel.