<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (10) TMI 668 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184612</link>
    <description>Criminal proceedings may be quashed at the threshold only in rare cases where the defence material convincingly shows that the prosecution is absurd, preposterous, or wholly concocted. Allegations of deceit and misrepresentation in the FIR disclosed a prima facie offence, and the connected civil suit records did not meet the high standard for pre-cognizance interference, so the proceedings against the first respondent were allowed to continue. By contrast, no material in the FIR or prosecution case linked the second respondent to the alleged offence, and ownership under the sale deed alone was insufficient to show prima facie involvement, so quashing in her favour was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Dec 2023 17:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=434894" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 668 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184612</link>
      <description>Criminal proceedings may be quashed at the threshold only in rare cases where the defence material convincingly shows that the prosecution is absurd, preposterous, or wholly concocted. Allegations of deceit and misrepresentation in the FIR disclosed a prima facie offence, and the connected civil suit records did not meet the high standard for pre-cognizance interference, so the proceedings against the first respondent were allowed to continue. By contrast, no material in the FIR or prosecution case linked the second respondent to the alleged offence, and ownership under the sale deed alone was insufficient to show prima facie involvement, so quashing in her favour was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184612</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>