Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings for cheating and criminal intimidation should be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the basis of unimpeachable defence material and on-merits exoneration in departmental proceedings.
Analysis: At the stage of considering discharge or quashing, the truthfulness of the complaint and the weight of the defence ordinarily cannot be determined. However, the High Court may exercise inherent jurisdiction where the accused relies on material of sterling and impeccable quality that is sufficient to completely displace the allegations, is not capable of justifiable refutation, and demonstrates that continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process. The registered sale documents, notarized declarations, cash receipt and departmental enquiry report showed that the property transaction was supported by admitted consideration and execution of public documents. The departmental exoneration was on merits and concerned the same factual allegations, making continuation of the criminal prosecution impermissible.
Conclusion: The criminal proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.