Scribd
Upload
20 views1 page

High Courts Can Quash Firs: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled that High Courts can quash FIRs if they do not disclose any cognizable offence based on the facts presented. The Court said criminal proceedings should generally proceed to completion under criminal law, but High Courts can interfere at interim stages if no case is made based on the complainant's evidence and documents alone, without further scrutiny. In this case, senior bank officials sought discharge as the FIR and chargesheet did not disclose any case against them, but the trial and High Court rejected this. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order, noting the courts did not properly examine if the evidence was sufficient to proceed further.

Uploaded by

sunny122004
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
20 views1 page

High Courts Can Quash Firs: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled that High Courts can quash FIRs if they do not disclose any cognizable offence based on the facts presented. The Court said criminal proceedings should generally proceed to completion under criminal law, but High Courts can interfere at interim stages if no case is made based on the complainant's evidence and documents alone, without further scrutiny. In this case, senior bank officials sought discharge as the FIR and chargesheet did not disclose any case against them, but the trial and High Court rejected this. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order, noting the courts did not properly examine if the evidence was sufficient to proceed further.

Uploaded by

sunny122004
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

High Courts can quash FIRs : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has recently ruled that the High Courts can quash an FIR against a person if it did
not prima facie disclose any offence.
A two judge bench said that ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused must be tried
and taken to logical conclusions under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and the High Courts
should be reluctant to interfere into the proceedings at an interlocutory stage.
"However, if upon the admitted facts and the documents relied upon by the complainant or the
prosecution and without weighing or sifting evidence, no case is made out, the criminal proceedings
instituted against the accused are required to be dropped or quashed", the bench said. Where the
allegations in the FIR or the complaint or the accompanying documents taken at their face value, do not
constitute the offence alleged, the person proceeded against in such a frivolous criminal litigation has to
be saved, ruled the bench.
One K. Ramakrishnan and others, senior officers of the United Bank of India, have been arraigned as
accused persons in the chargesheet submitted in a Patna court. They sought discharge from the case on
the ground that no case was disclosed either in the FIR or in the documents, accompanying the final
report submitted under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. Their plea was rejected by the trial court and also by
the Patna High Court.
The apex court setting aside the High Court order, observed that the trial court under Section 239 and the
High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. did not embark upon an inquiry as to whether evidence in
question was reliable or not or evidence relied upon was sufficient to proceed further or not. The inherent
powers of the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC could be exercised to quash proceedings, in
appropriate cases either to prevent the abuse of the process of any courts or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice.

You might also like