Wrongful Confinement - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court: Disputed No-Dues Certificate Can’t Be Ground to Quash Criminal Proceedings

2Mar

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Disputed No-Dues Certificate Can’t Be Ground to Quash Criminal Proceedings

The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed where allegations prima facie disclose essential ingredients of an offence. The power under Section 482 CrPC is sparing; disputed documents like No-Dues Certificate cannot be relied upon at pre-trial stage. Civil remedy coexistence doesn't bar prosecution if allegations support criminal liability. Facts Of The Case: The dispute in this case arose from contractual and financial dealings between the appellant (accused no. 2) and respondent no. 2 (complainant) concerning construction work undertaken between 2008 and 2010. A No Dues Certificate was issued by respondent no. 2 on 10.06.2010 and acknowledged on 12.06.2010, recording that no payments were outstanding. Subsequently, disputes emerged between the parties, leading to...

Can Juvenility Be Claimed Decades Later? Supreme Court Says Yes in Historic 2025 Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 342 and 376 IPC, rejecting arguments about discrepancies in prosecution evidence and delay in FIR registration. However, the Court accepted the appellant’s juvenility claim under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, based on school records confirming his age as 16 years at the time of the offense. The sentence was set aside, and the case was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders, affirming that juvenility can be raised at any stage, even post-conviction, as per precedents like Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi). The Court emphasized that credible prosecutrix testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, suffices for conviction in rape cases. Facts Of The Case: The case involves an appeal against the ...

Supreme Court Acquits Man in Rape Case Due to Lack of Evidence on Victim’s Age

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor under Sections 363/376 IPC. The school certificate (Ex.P11) lacked corroborative evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, as the source of birth records was unverified. Additionally, charges of kidnapping (Section 363) and wrongful confinement (Section 342) were unsubstantiated, as the victim’s voluntary companionship and lack of coercion negated criminal intent. The Court emphasized that mere entries in official documents require independent proof to establish age conclusively, and absence of non-consensual sexual intercourse invalidated the rape charge (Section 376). Benefit of doubt was granted due to insufficient evidence. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Birka Shiva...