NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

Sunder kumar & ors. V. State & anr. - (High Court of Delhi) (06 May 2020)

Progress of the criminal law, once legitimately set in motion, should not be halted by judicial diktat, save in exceptional circumstances

MANU/DE/1020/2020

Criminal

Present writ petition, preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks quashing of FIR registered against the Petitioners. The FIR alleges that, the Petitioners have committed offences under Sections 188/269/186/353/332/506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that, there are marked inconsistencies in the version of the Police. Question involved in present matter is whether the Petitioners can be said to have made out the case for quashing of the FIR against them.

Breach of the lockdown restrictions, imposed by the Government, which, if permitted unchecked, may result in loss of lives of millions, and cannot be tolerated for an instance. The acts of the Petitioners, if true, are inherently inimical to pubic and societal interest as a whole. Acts, often innocuous, may have catastrophic consequences and courts, in cases such as these, cannot permit themselves to be carried away by the physical nature of the act as committed, unmindful of the results that would ensue, were such acts to be tolerated. While this sole factor may, even by itself, be sufficient to have merited dismissal of this petition, the Status Report further states that the allegations in the FIR are supported by the MLC of the complainant.

Quashing of criminal proceedings by eviscerating them from their very inception, is an extreme step, to be taken with due circumspection. The powers of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC to quash criminal proceedings, though extremely wide, are to be exercised with a great degree of caution. The progress of the criminal law, once legitimately set in motion, should not be halted by judicial diktat, save in exceptional circumstances and with due cause.

In a petition under Section 482 of CrPC, this Court cannot enter into detailed appreciation of evidence. Suffice it to state that, on the material on record, no case, for quashing of the FIR, and thereby eviscerating the proceedings against the petitioners, at this nascent stage, can be said to have been made out. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Tags : PROCEEDINGS   QUASHING OF   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved