Supreme Court: Borrowers Retain Redemption Rights if Balance is Paid After Auction Deadline  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Confirmation of Seizure under Section 37A Impacts Adjudication Proceedings  ||  SC: Blacklisting After Contract Termination is Not Automatic and Needs Independent Review  ||  Grand Venice Fraud Case: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Satinder Singh Bhasin  ||  SC: Senior Employee Cannot Claim Same Lesser Penalty As Subordinate; Bank Manager's Dismissal Upheld  ||  Madras HC: Governor Must Follow Cabinet's Advice on Remission Decisions, Regardless of Personal View  ||  Kerala High Court: Entrepreneurs Must Be Protected From Baseless Protests to Boost Industrial Growth  ||  J&K&L High Court: Second FIR Valid if it Reveals a Broader Conspiracy; 'Test of Sameness' is Key  ||  Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment    

Jinendra Jagdish Upadhyay and Ors. vs. The State Of Maharashtra and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:26040-DB) - (High Court of Bombay) (03 Jul 2024)

In frivolous proceedings, Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from record of the case over and above the averments

MANU/MH/3990/2024

Criminal

Petitioners seek quashing of criminal proceedings qua them in Regular Criminal Case pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, arising out of First Information Report ("F.I.R.") registered with the Tarapur Police Station, for the offense punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 342 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("I.P.C.").

In a series of earlier decisions, the Supreme Court has discussed the legal position and provided guidance in matters where vague and general allegations are made against the Accused and a bunch of relatives of the husband are sought to be roped in criminal proceedings. In its decision in the matter of Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. while considering the principles applicable to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("Cr.P.C."), observed that, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 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.

There is no allegation against these Petitioners. The F.I.R. therefore appears to have been made against these Petitioners only with a view to harass them and settle some personal grudge. We do find specific allegations against the husband but there are no allegations against the Petitioners No. 1 and 2 and extremely vague allegations against the Petitioners No. 3 and 4. The F.I.R. and the charge- sheet prima-facie do not disclose commission of any offense by these Petitioners.

The material on record is wholly insufficient to proceed against the Petitioners. Continuing the criminal proceedings against these Petitioners will be an abuse of the process of law.Accordingly, Regular Criminal Case pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Classare quashed and set aside.

Tags : FIR   VAGUE ALLEGATION   QUASHING OF  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved