Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Code of criminal procedure, 1973

RAGHUNATH SHARMA & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

The High Court erred in recalling and reviving the FIR previously quashed because Section 362 Cr.P.C. almost absolutely bars alteration or review of a signed judgment and Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to alter such a judgment except in the narrow exceptions (lack of jurisdiction, violation of audi alteram partem, or abuse of process) which were not present; therefore the impugned revival was impermissible and is to be set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Section 362 cr.p.c.
  • Section 482 cr.p.c.
  • Inherent powers of high court
  • Recall of order of quashment
  • Revival of fir
  • Compromise and breach of compromise
Read case analysis
Criminal law

RENUKA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

The High Court erred in quashing the proceedings by conducting a mini trial and weighing ocular and medical evidence; the allegation of assault and throwing chilli powder is supported by the wound certificate showing simple injury and the statement of an independent neighbour, and therefore the case did not fall within the narrow category where there is no legal evidence or evidence manifestly inconsistent with the accusations; the impugned order setting aside proceedings against the respondent-husband was set aside and proceedings revived.

Source excerpt

  • Quashing of criminal proceedings
  • Inherent powers of high court
  • Wound/medical evidence
  • Mini trial
  • Constructive liability/common intention
  • Dowry
Read case analysis
Criminal law

STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus SURENDRA SINGH RATHORE

The second FIR was permissible because it dealt with a larger scheme of widespread corruption and had a distinct scope from the earlier FIR; quashing it would have unjustifiably curtailed investigation into that larger conspiracy, hence the High Court's order quashing the second FIR was set aside and the second FIR restored for continued investigation.

Source excerpt

  • Second fir
  • Quashing
  • Inherent powers of high court
  • Abuse of process
  • Investigation
  • Prevention of corruption act
Read case analysis
Criminal procedure

VIPIN SAHNI AND ANOTHER versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

The High Court erred in entertaining the CBI’s petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in lieu of a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C.; on the facts the essential ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC and criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC were not established (AICTE was not shown to have been dishonestly induced and the mortgage was disclosed in the first application), therefore the Trial Court’s discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. was valid and is restored.

Source excerpt

  • Section 482 cr.p.c.
  • Section 397 cr.p.c.
  • Cheating (section 420 ipc)
  • Criminal conspiracy (sections 120a/120b ipc)
  • Inherent powers of high court
  • Discharge of accused
Read case analysis
Criminal procedure

NARESH KUMAR & ANR. versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

The dispute was essentially civil (a contractual dispute over number of bicycles and payment), the parties effected a compromise and the appellants paid and respondent accepted an additional settlement amount; there was no evidence of pre-existing fraudulent intention and no allegation of coercion in an FIR, therefore the High Court erred in refusing to quash the criminal proceedings and the FIR and consequential proceedings were an abuse of process and are to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

Source excerpt

  • Quashing of fir
  • Inherent powers of high court
  • Abuse of process
  • Cheating
  • Criminal breach of trust
  • Settlement/compromise
Read case analysis
Criminal procedure

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus ARYAN SINGH ETC.

The High Court exceeded its limited jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by effectively conducting a mini-trial, holding the charges to be not proved and the prosecution malicious at the quashing stage; the High Court's order quashing the criminal proceedings was unsustainable and is set aside, and the accused are to face trial within a directed timeframe.

Source excerpt

  • Quashing of criminal proceedings
  • Discharge
  • Inherent powers of high court
  • Prima facie material
  • Malicious prosecution
  • Cbi investigation
Read case analysis
Criminal procedure

JITUL JENTILAL KOTECHA versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. ETC

The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by restraining the police from submitting the final report/charge-sheet to the Magistrate without reasons and by relying on a draft charge-sheet (not submitted to the Magistrate) to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings; petitions for quashing by persons not named in the FIR and based on names appearing only in a draft charge-sheet were premature and constituted an abuse of process. The High Court's order dated 8 January 2019 was therefore set aside; appeals arising out of SLP (Crl) Nos 5736-39 of 2019 were allowed and appe…

Source excerpt

  • Section 482 crpc
  • Quashing of fir
  • Inherent powers of high court
  • Investigation and charge-sheet
  • Champerty and extortion
Read case analysis
Criminal law

CHILAKAMARTHI VENKATESWARLU & ANR.V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

The High Court rightly refused to quash the criminal proceedings as the allegations in the complaint and statements before the Magistrate contained the necessary ingredients of the charged offences under ss.307, 323, 427, 447, 506(2) r/w s.34 IPC, and the power under s.482 CrPC should only be exercised sparingly, not to stifle legitimate prosecution.

Source excerpt

  • Inherent powers of high court
  • Quashing of criminal proceedings
  • Scope of s.482 crpc
  • Ingredients of ipc offences
Read case analysis
Criminal law

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus LAXMI NARAYAN AND OTHERS

The High Court erred in mechanically quashing FIRs and criminal proceedings for serious, non-compoundable offences (Sections 307, 308 IPC etc.) on the basis of compromise, without considering gravity, nature of offence, conduct and antecedents of accused, and without assessing whether sufficient evidence exists to sustain charges; quashing in such cases is not sustainable as crimes have societal impact.

Source excerpt

  • Quashing of fir
  • Inherent powers of high court
  • Compromise in criminal cases
  • Compoundable and non-compoundable offences
Read case analysis
Criminal law

VINEET KUMAR & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

No medical examination was done promptly; family members and circumstantial evidence affirm the incident did not occur; material indicates that proceedings were maliciously instituted with mala fide for an ulterior motive; the High Court ought to have exercised its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings, as judicial process should not be abused.

Source excerpt

  • Quashing of criminal proceedings
  • Inherent powers of high court
  • Abuse of court process
  • False criminal complaint
  • Section 482 cr.p.c.
  • Negotiable instruments act s.138
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.