Can FIR be quashed after filing of chargesheet?
Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973; Section 482 -Whether quashing of the FIR can be refused for no other reason than that the investigating officer has filed the charge-sheet? High Court under Section 482, Cr. PC. retains the power to quash an FIR, even after charge-sheet under Section 173(2) thereof is filed, provided a satisfaction is reached, inter alia, that either the FIR and the charge-sheet read together, even accepted as true and correct without rebuttal, does not disclose commission of any offence or that continuation of proceedings arising out of such an FIR would in fact be an abuse of the process of law as well as of the Court given the peculiar circumstances of each particular case- Referred to Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo (2011) 6 SCC 479 , Anand Kumar Mohatta vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Home Department (2019) 11 SCC 706 and Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 108. (Para 7-8) – Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat CrA 1884/2013 – S 482 CrPC
Is an order dismissing an application seeking modification of charge ‘interlocutory order’? Is a revision petition maintainable?
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 216,397– The order dismissing application seeking modification of charge would be an interlocutory order and in view of the express bar contained in sub-section (2) of Section 397 Cr.P.C., the Revision Application itself is not maintainable. (Para 8)- K Ravi vs State Of Tamil Nadu 2024 INSC 642
Does Section 216 CrPC give any right to the accused to file a fresh application seeking his discharge after the charge is framed?
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 216,227- Section 216 is an enabling provision which enables the court to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced, and if any alteration or addition to a charge is made, the court has to follow the procedure as contained therein. Section 216 does not give any right to the accused to file a fresh application seeking his discharge after the charge is framed by the court, more particularly when his application seeking discharge under Section 227 has already been dismissed. Unfortunately, such applications are being filed in the trial courts sometimes in ignorance of law and sometimes deliberately to delay the proceedings. Once such applications though untenable are filed, the trial courts have no alternative but to decide them, and then again such orders would be challenged before the higher courts, and the whole criminal trial would get derailed- Such practice is highly deplorable, and if followed, should be dealt with sternly by the courts. (Para 11)- K Ravi vs State Of Tamil Nadu 2024 INSC 642
What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397?
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 397-The Court exercising Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 397 should be extremely circumspect in interfering with the order framing the charge, and could not have interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application for modification of the charge under Section 216 Cr.P.C., which order otherwise would fall in the category of an interlocutory order – scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited. Apart from the fact that subsection 2 of Section 397 prohibits the Court from exercising the powers of Revision, even the powers under sub-section 1 thereof should be exercised very sparingly and only where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there is non-compliance of the provisions of law, or the finding recorded by the trial court is based on no evidence, or material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely by framing the charge. (Para 10) – K Ravi vs State Of Tamil Nadu 2024 INSC 642
What is the scope of discharge under Section 227 CrPC?
Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973; Section 227– The expression “not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” clearly shows that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution. The Judge must exercise the judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. The principles governing the scope of Section 227, Cr.P.C. – Referred to Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4. (Para 20.2)- Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited vs Central Bureau Of Investigation 2024 INSC 623
What is the scope of quashing powers of High Court under Section 482 CrPC?
Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973; Section 482– Section 482 Cr.P.C recognizes the inherent powers of the High Court to quash initiation of prosecution against the accused to pass such orders as may be considered necessary to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is a statutory power vested in the High Court to quash such criminal proceedings that would dislodge the charges levelled against the accused and based on the material produced, lead to a firm opinion that the assertions contained in the charges levelled by the prosecution deserve to be overruled. 18.8 While exercising the powers vested in the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C, whether at the stage of issuing process or at the stage of committal or even at the stage of framing of charges, which are all stages that are prior to commencement of the actual trial, the test to be applied is that the Court must be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused would lead to a conclusion that their defence is based on sound, reasonable and indubitable facts. The material relied on by the accused should also be such that would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss the accusations levelled against them as false. (Para 18.7-18.8) Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited vs Central Bureau Of Investigation 2024 INSC 623
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482– While exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the High Court is not supposed to hold a mini trial- Dharambeer Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand 2024 INSC 583
Is a petition filed under Section 482, CrPC, for quashing an order summoning the accused maintainable?
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482– A petition filed under Section 482, CrPC, for quashing an order summoning the accused is maintainable. There cannot be any doubt that once it is held that sine qua non for exercise of the power to issue summons is the subjective satisfaction “on the ground for proceeding further” while exercising the power to consider the legality of a summons issued by a Magistrate, certainly it is the duty of the Court to look into the question as to whether the learned Magistrate had applied his mind to form an opinion as to the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding further and in that regard to issue summons to face the trial for the offence concerned. (Para 22) – Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 INSC 626
What is the scope of the Magistrate’s power under Section 204 CrPC?
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 204 -Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. [Referred to Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate : (1998) 5 SCC 749] (Para 13) – Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 INSC 626
What was the purpose behind incorporating Section 438 in CrPC (anticipatory bail)?
The purpose behind incorporating Section 438 in CrPC was to recognise the importance of personal liberty and freedom in a free and democratic country. A careful reading of this section reveals that the legislature was keen to ensure respect for the personal liberty by pressing in service the age-old principle that an individual is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the court. [See: Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694] – Referred to Shajan Skaria vs State Of Kerala 2024 INSC 625
What is surety ?
The Oxford Dictionary defines ‘surety’ as “a person who takes responsibility for another’s obligation”. Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 3 rd Edition 2005 defines ‘surety’ to mean “the bail that undertakes for another man in a criminal case- Sureties are essential to ensure the presence of the accused, released on bail. At the same time, where the court is faced with the situation where the accused enlarged on bail is unable to find sureties, as ordered, in multiple cases, there is also a need to balance the requirement of furnishing the sureties with his or her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. An order which would protect the person’s fundamental right under Article 21 and at the same time guarantee the presence, would be reasonable and proportionate. As to what such an order should be, will again depend on the facts and circumstances of each case- Whether it is to get individuals, to stand as a guarantor for a loan transaction or as a Surety in a criminal proceeding, the choice for a person is very limited. It will very often be a close relative or a longtime friend. In a criminal proceeding, the circle may get even more narrowed as the normal tendency is to not disclose about the said criminal proceeding to relatives and friends, to protect one’s reputation. These are hard realities of life in our country and as a court of law we cannot shut our eyes to them. A solution, however, has to be found strictly within the framework of the law- Girish Gandhi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2024 INSC 617
Can impossible conditions be imposed while granting anticipatory bai?
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 [Section 482 BNSS] – After forming an opinion, taking note of all relevant aspects, that bail is grantable, conditions shall not be put to make it impossible and impracticable for the grantee to comply with – The ultimate purpose of putting conditions while granting pre-arrest bail is to secure the presence of the accused and thus, eventually to ensure a fair trial and also for the smooth flow of the investigating process – Courts have to be very cautious in imposing conditions while granting bail upon finding pre-arrest bail to be grantable. [Putting conditions requiring a person to give an affidavit carrying a specific statement in the form of an undertaking that he would fulfil all physical as well as financial requirements of the other spouse so that she could lead a dignified life without interference of any of the family members of the appellant, can only be described as an absolutely improbable and impracticable condition]- We stress upon the need to put compliable conditions while granting bail, recognizing the human right to live with dignity and with a view to secure the presence of the accused as also unhindered course of investigation, ultimately to ensure a fair trial. In respect of matters relating to matrimonial cases, conditions shall be put in such a way to make the grantee of the bail as also the griever to regain the lost love and affection and to come back to peaceful domesticity. (Para 7-9) –Sudeep Chatterjee vs State of Bihar 2024 INSC 567