Abuse of process - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Explains : When Can Courts Quash Serious Crimes?

5Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Explains : When Can Courts Quash Serious Crimes?

The Supreme Court, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, quashed criminal proceedings—including a non-compoundable offense under Section 376 IPC—based on an amicable settlement between the parties. The Court emphasized that while such offenses are grave, exceptional circumstances (victim’s unequivocal settlement, societal harmony, and futility of trial) justified judicial intervention to prevent abuse of process. The ruling reaffirms that ends of justice override rigid legal constraints in unique cases. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from two FIRs registered in November 2023 at Mehunbare Police Station, Jalgaon. The first FIR (No. 302/2023) was filed against Madhukar and others under Sections 324, 143, 147, 452, and others of the IPC, alleging they assaulted a woman a...

Bank’s Gold Revaluation Under Scrutiny: Supreme Court Allows Trial Against Bank Officials

18Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Bank’s Gold Revaluation Under Scrutiny: Supreme Court Allows Trial Against Bank Officials

The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal by Abhishek Singh, holding that the High Court improperly quashed the FIR filed by him. The High Court erred by considering extraneous documents and evaluating the merits of the case at the quashing stage, rather than determining if a prima facie offense was made out. The proceedings from the FIR are revived, and the guilt or innocence of the respondents is to be established at trial. Facts Of The Case: Abhishek Singh, the appellant, a businessman, secured a loan of ₹7,70,000 from the Bank of India on July 22, 2020, by pledging 254 grams of 22-carat gold ornaments. According to Singh, he repaid the loan, including interest, by March 31, 2023, after receiving a notice from the bank on October 7, 2022, to pay ₹8,01,383.59. However, unbeknownst ...

UP Gangster Act Misuse? Supreme Court Sets Guidelines for Fair Enforcement

10Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

UP Gangster Act Misuse? Supreme Court Sets Guidelines for Fair Enforcement

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under the UP Gangsters Act, emphasizing that a gang chart's approval requires independent application of mind by authorities and cannot be based solely on prior FIRs, especially without overt acts, violence, or economic gain. The judgment clarified the stringent conditions necessary for invoking the Act and upheld the importance of due process in such cases. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a criminal appeal against a High Court judgment that refused to quash proceedings initiated under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, against the appellant, Vinod Bihari Lal. The appellant was implicated in a "gang chart" based on previous FIRs. He sought to quash the proceedings and non-bailable warrants i...

Supreme Court Rules High Courts CAN Quash DV Act Proceedings Under Section 482 CrPC

30May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules High Courts CAN Quash DV Act Proceedings Under Section 482 CrPC

The Supreme Court held that High Courts possess inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (or Section 528 BNSS) to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as these applications are filed before Criminal Courts (Magistrates). However, such power must be exercised sparingly and only in cases of gross illegality or abuse of process, considering the civil nature of DV Act remedies and its objective as social welfare legislation. The Court clarified that proceedings under the DV Act, though heard by Criminal Courts, remain predominantly civil in character. Facts Of The Case: Vidhi Rawal (Respondent) married Prateek Tripathi on December 12, 2019, in Dewas, Madhya Pradesh. After two years, on December 8, 2021, she complained to Dewas police against Pr...

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Section 482 CrPC Powers :High Courts Can’t Revive Quashed FIRs After Compromise

26May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Section 482 CrPC Powers :High Courts Can’t Revive Quashed FIRs After Compromise

The Supreme Court ruled that High Courts cannot revive quashed FIRs under Section 482 CrPC after parties have reached a lawful compromise, emphasizing the absolute bar under Section 362 CrPC against reviewing judgments except for clerical errors. It clarified that inherent powers cannot override statutory prohibitions, allowing recall only in cases of jurisdictional errors or abuse of process. The judgment reaffirmed that violation of compromise terms must be addressed through civil remedies, not criminal proceedings. The Court directed all High Courts to adhere to this settled legal position. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a property dispute in Haryana, where an FIR (No. 432/2014) was registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against Raghunath Sharma and others for alleged ...

Supreme Court Rejects Delay Condonation in Property Dispute: No Second Chance for Delay “Limitation Act”

17May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rejects Delay Condonation in Property Dispute: No Second Chance for Delay “Limitation Act”

The Supreme Court ruled that repeated applications for condonation of delay under different procedural provisions (Order IX Rule 13 and Order XLI Rule 3A CPC) cannot be entertained when the same grounds were already rejected in earlier rounds. Emphasizing strict adherence to limitation laws, the Court held that finality of judicial orders must prevail over belated challenges, and litigants cannot abuse process by re-agitating identical delay explanations. The judgment reaffirmed that Section 14 of the Limitation Act doesn’t apply where prior delay condonation pleas were dismissed on merits. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a 2015 sale agreement between the appellant (Thirunagalingam) and respondent No. 1 (Lingeswaran) concerning property in Nainarkoil village. When the responden...