Trial Restoration - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Rules Against “Mini-Trial” by High Court, Says Forgery & Cheating Case Must Proceed

29Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules Against “Mini-Trial” by High Court, Says Forgery & Cheating Case Must Proceed

The Supreme Court held that at the quashing stage under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or evaluate evidence. If the complaint and prima facie documents disclose cognizable offences, the prosecution must proceed to trial. The merits of allegations, including forgery and cheating, are to be tested through evidence, not nipped in the bud. Facts Of The Case: The complainant, Komal Prasad Shakya, filed a criminal complaint alleging that Rajendra Singh, who had always identified as a General Category 'Sikh', fraudulently obtained a Scheduled Caste ('Sansi') certificate just before the 2008 Guna Assembly elections. Using this certificate, he contested and won from a reserved constituency. The complaint accused Rajendra Singh, his father Amrik Singh, and others in...

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...

Cheque Issued After Retirement? Supreme Court Says Partner Still Liable Without Proper Notice

The Supreme Court held that a partner's retirement from a registered firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, requires strict compliance with Section 72—including public notice publication and Registrar of Firms updates—to absolve liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Non-compliance renders retirement legally ineffective. The High Court erred under Section 482 CrPC by deciding factual disputes (e.g., retirement date/liability) prematurely, as these require trial evidence. Signatory status is irrelevant for partner liability under Section 141 NI Act if involvement in firm affairs is alleged. Facts Of The Case: Shivappa Reddy (Appellant) filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against M/s AVS Constructions (Ac...