Tag: Quashing Petition

Supreme Court: Amicable Settlement Leads to Full Quashing of FIR, Including Dacoity Charge
4Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Amicable Settlement Leads to Full Quashing of FIR, Including Dacoity Charge

The Supreme Court quashed an FIR for dacoity (BNS S. 310(2)/IPC S. 395) as the alleged acts lacked dishonest intention for theft/robbery—a prerequisite for dacoity. The Court held that subsequent full restitution and amicable settlement with the complainant negated the core criminal intent, rendering the entire prosecution unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The complainant, a school clerk, alleged that on October 4, 2024, six to seven unknown persons entered P.G. Public School in Nandurbar. They demanded specific Engineering and B.A.M.S. files, assaulted and intimidated staff, and forcibly took a cheque book, blank letterheads, stamps, cash (Rs. 1,50,000), and a computer. The accused were allegedly searching for institutional documents, and the taking of property was incidental. Subsequen...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Seized Property, Says “Expediency” Under CrPC Has Limits
9Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Seized Property, Says “Expediency” Under CrPC Has Limits

The Supreme Court held that the release of case property (cash) under Section 451 CrPC was premature. The ownership of seized money, being the proceeds of alleged crime with multiple claimants, cannot be determined conclusively at an interim stage but must be adjudicated after a full trial upon consideration of all evidence. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR (CR No. 11206078220159 of 2022) alleging that the appellant-accused, through his proprietary firm Jay Gopal Trading Company, committed cheating and criminal breach of trust against a complainant and other merchants in transactions involving castor seeds. During the investigation, the police seized cash amounting to Rs. 50,00,000. Respondent No. 2, another merchant claiming the seized cash was for goods he sold to the...
Read More
Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Bars Prosecution of Company Directors Without Suing the Company First
30Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Bars Prosecution of Company Directors Without Suing the Company First

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal defamation proceedings against the bank officials. It held that for offences under the Indian Penal Code, there is no concept of vicarious liability. Prosecuting officers without arraigning the company as an accused and without specific allegations of their culpable role is impermissible and an abuse of process. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a loan default by Phoenix India, which had secured credit facilities from the Bank of Baroda. After the firm's account was classified as a non-performing asset, the Bank initiated recovery under the SARFAESI Act. A critical error occurred when the Bank issued a symbolic possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, which inadvertently quoted the outstanding dues as approximately Rs. 56.15 cro...
Read More
Supreme Court Recalls Its Own Order Against a Judge, Upholds High Court Chief Justice’s Authority
11Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Recalls Its Own Order Against a Judge, Upholds High Court Chief Justice’s Authority

The Supreme Court, while deleting specific administrative directions against a High Court judge upon the CJI's request, reaffirmed its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 136. It emphasized that persistent judicial errors raising institutional concerns compel the Court to intervene to protect the rule of law and maintain the judiciary's dignity and credibility. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Special Leave Petition filed by M/s Shikhar Chemicals challenging an order passed by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court, in its order dated 4th August 2025, found the High Court's judgment to be erroneous. Consequently, it set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration on the merits. The apex court's directive i...
Read More
Parallel Proceedings Valid: Supreme Court Clarifies Law in Central Excise Act Dispute
18Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Parallel Proceedings Valid: Supreme Court Clarifies Law in Central Excise Act Dispute

The Supreme Court upheld the continuation of criminal proceedings under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, despite the quashing of adjudication orders on procedural grounds. Relying on Radheshyam Kejriwal, it ruled that parallel departmental and criminal proceedings are permissible, and discharge cannot be sought merely due to pending adjudication. The Court emphasized that prima facie evidence in the complaint justified the trial, rejecting technical objections under CrPC Section 245(2). It clarified that remand for de novo adjudication does not equate to exoneration on merits, ensuring criminal liability remains independent of administrative outcomes. Facts Of The Case: The case involved M/s Rimjhim Ispat Limited, M/s Juhi Alloys Limited, and Yogesh Aggarwal (Appellant...
Read More
Abuse of Legal Process? : Supreme Court Quashes Second Petition , Not Allowed Without New Grounds
18Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Abuse of Legal Process? : Supreme Court Quashes Second Petition , Not Allowed Without New Grounds

The Supreme Court ruled that a second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC is impermissible if based on grounds available during the first petition, as it effectively amounts to a review barred under Section 362 CrPC. The Court emphasized that inherent powers cannot override statutory prohibitions, preventing abuse of legal process through successive petitions. The judgment reaffirmed that change in circumstances or new grounds must be demonstrated for entertaining subsequent quashing petitions, ensuring judicial discipline and preventing harassment via repetitive litigation. The High Court's order allowing a second petition was set aside, restoring the criminal complaint for trial. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a dispute between the appellant, M.C. Ravikumar, and the respon...
Read More