TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court quashes FIR due to ulterior motive and lack of cognizable offense.</h1> The Supreme Court of India quashed FIR No. 127 of 2022, finding it was filed with an ulterior motive and lacked disclosure of any cognizable offense under ... Seeking quashing of Criminal proceedings - FIR lodged after a period of 14 years from the alleged illegal acts of the appellants - Illegal mining - exploiting poor persons - invocation of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution - HELD THAT:- Even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed or accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence as alleged are disclosed. It is pertinent to note that the FIR in question came to be lodged after a period of 14 years from the alleged illegal acts of the appellants. It is also pertinent to note that in the FIR no specific date or time of the alleged offences has been disclosed. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely - The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. The impugned order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is hereby set aside - Appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe Supreme Court of India considered the following core legal questions in this judgment:Whether the First Information Report (FIR) No. 127 of 2022 should be quashedRs.Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC)Rs.Whether the FIR was filed with an ulterior motive for personal vengeanceRs.Whether the delay in filing the FIR affects its credibilityRs.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Whether the FIR should be quashedRs.- Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court referred to the parameters laid down in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal for quashing an FIR, which include situations where the allegations do not constitute an offence, are inherently improbable, or are made with mala fide intent.- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court found that the FIR was lodged after a significant delay of 14 years without any specific date or time of the alleged offences. The allegations appeared to be concocted and fabricated.- Key evidence and findings: The FIR lacked specific details and was filed long after the alleged incidents, which cast doubt on its credibility.- Application of law to facts: The court applied the principles from Bhajan Lal and found that the case fell within the parameters for quashing the FIR, specifically under points 1, 5, and 7, which relate to the absence of a prima facie case, inherent improbability, and mala fide intent.- Treatment of competing arguments: The appellants argued that the FIR was filed with an ulterior motive and highlighted the improbability of the allegations. The State contended that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and that delay should not be a ground for quashing.- Conclusions: The court concluded that the FIR should be quashed as it was filed with an ulterior motive and did not disclose any cognizable offence.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'We are of the view that even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed or accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence as alleged are disclosed.'- Core principles established: The judgment reinforced the principles for quashing an FIR as laid out in Bhajan Lal, emphasizing the need to assess the FIR for inherent improbability and mala fide intent.- Final determinations on each issue: The court determined that the FIR No. 127 of 2022 should be quashed as it was filed with an ulterior motive and did not disclose any cognizable offence under the IPC.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and quashing the criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 127 of 2022. The court clarified that its observations were relevant only for the purpose of this FIR and would not affect any other pending criminal prosecutions or proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
