Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.49 seconds)
D. Sridhar vs The State Of Telangana on 18 December, 2020 cites

Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 February, 2019

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra1 has categorically held that quashing criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to High Court to quash same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out whether case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for High Court to interfere. 1 . AIR 2019 SC 847 KL,J Crl.P. No.3839 of 2020 & batch 13 The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing complaint at threshold. At that stage, only question relevant was whether averments in complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that were alleged against Respondents. Correctness or otherwise of said allegations had to be decided only in trial. At initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of Accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 1870 - L N Rao - Full Document
1