0

No Evidence, No Case: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Marital Dispute.  

Blog, Supreme court , , , , ,

Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3628 of 2023.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Date: November 28, 2023.

Quorum: Hon’ble J.  C. T. Ravikumar, J.  Sanjay Kumar.

Facts of the Case

In the case of Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the dispute arose from an FIR registered on September 4, 2016. The FIR was filed against Abhishek Saxena, his parents, and relatives, alleging offenses under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 363 (kidnapping), 384 (extortion), and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The charges were filed by the complainant, who is the second respondent, following an incident that allegedly occurred on June 12, 2016. The complainant claimed that Saxena and his relatives had taken away her daughter and assaulted her when she inquired about her daughter’s whereabouts.

Legal Issues

  1. Whether the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet disclosed the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offenses under Sections 323, 384, and 406 of the IPC?
  2. Whether the High Court was justified in not exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to quash the FIR and the chargesheet?

Legal Provisions

  1. Indian Penal Code:
  • Section 323, IPC: Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
  • Section 384, IPC: Defines punishment for extortion, requiring proof of intentionally putting a person in fear of injury and dishonestly inducing the person to deliver property or valuable security.
  • Section 406, IPC: Pertains to criminal breach of trust, necessitating proof of entrustment of property and its dishonest misappropriation or conversion for personal use.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner, Abhishek Saxena, contended that the chargesheet did not disclose any material evidence to substantiate the allegations of causing hurt, extortion, or criminal breach of trust. The complainant’s allegations were vague and lacked corroborative evidence, such as medical reports or documented injury claims. The FIR was filed with considerable delay, which was only after Saxena had filed a petition for the dissolution of marriage and for custody of the minor daughter under the Guardians & Wards Act.

Contentions of the Respondents

The respondents, primarily the complainant and the State of Uttar Pradesh, argued that the FIR and the chargesheet contained sufficient allegations to proceed with the prosecution. The delay in filing the FIR was justified due to the circumstances and the nature of the offenses. The High Court correctly declined to quash the proceedings at the preliminary stage.

Judgement and Analysis

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the materials on record, found that the allegations and the chargesheet did not disclose the essential ingredients required to constitute the offenses under Sections 323, 384, and 406, IPC. The Court noted that there was no material evidence to support the allegation of causing hurt, such as medical reports or treatment records. The ingredients necessary to constitute extortion and criminal breach of trust were absent in the chargesheet. The significant delay in filing the FIR and the lack of substantive evidence weakened the complainant’s case. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR and the chargesheet, setting aside the order of the High Court, and allowed the appeal.

The judgement underscores the importance of substantiating allegations with concrete evidence before proceeding with criminal prosecution. It reflects the judiciary’s role in preventing the misuse of legal provisions for personal vendetta, particularly in marital disputes. The decision to quash the FIR and the chargesheet was primarily driven by the lack of essential evidence and the significant delay in filing the FIR, which appeared to be retaliatory following the petitioner’s legal actions concerning the dissolution of marriage and child custody.

Conclusion

The judgement in Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh reaffirms the need for due diligence and robust evidence in criminal proceedings. It also highlights the judiciary’s vigilance in safeguarding individuals from baseless prosecutions, ensuring that the legal process is not weaponized for ulterior motives. This case serves as a critical reminder of the balance that courts must maintain between allowing legitimate legal grievances to be addressed and preventing harassment through frivolous litigation.

 

Judgement reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.

Click here to read the Judgement. 

 

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

0

No Evidence, No Case: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Marital Dispute.  

Blog, Supreme court , , , , ,

Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3628 of 2023.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Date: November 28, 2023.

Quorum: Hon’ble J.  C. T. Ravikumar, J.  Sanjay Kumar.

Facts of the Case

In the case of Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the dispute arose from an FIR registered on September 4, 2016. The FIR was filed against Abhishek Saxena, his parents, and relatives, alleging offenses under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 363 (kidnapping), 384 (extortion), and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The charges were filed by the complainant, who is the second respondent, following an incident that allegedly occurred on June 12, 2016. The complainant claimed that Saxena and his relatives had taken away her daughter and assaulted her when she inquired about her daughter’s whereabouts.

Legal Issues

  1. Whether the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet disclosed the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offenses under Sections 323, 384, and 406 of the IPC?
  2. Whether the High Court was justified in not exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to quash the FIR and the chargesheet?

Legal Provisions

  1. Indian Penal Code:
  • Section 323, IPC: Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
  • Section 384, IPC: Defines punishment for extortion, requiring proof of intentionally putting a person in fear of injury and dishonestly inducing the person to deliver property or valuable security.
  • Section 406, IPC: Pertains to criminal breach of trust, necessitating proof of entrustment of property and its dishonest misappropriation or conversion for personal use.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner, Abhishek Saxena, contended that the chargesheet did not disclose any material evidence to substantiate the allegations of causing hurt, extortion, or criminal breach of trust. The complainant’s allegations were vague and lacked corroborative evidence, such as medical reports or documented injury claims. The FIR was filed with considerable delay, which was only after Saxena had filed a petition for the dissolution of marriage and for custody of the minor daughter under the Guardians & Wards Act.

 

Contentions of the Respondents

The respondents, primarily the complainant and the State of Uttar Pradesh, argued that the FIR and the chargesheet contained sufficient allegations to proceed with the prosecution. The delay in filing the FIR was justified due to the circumstances and the nature of the offenses. The High Court correctly declined to quash the proceedings at the preliminary stage.

Judgement and Analysis

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the materials on record, found that the allegations and the chargesheet did not disclose the essential ingredients required to constitute the offenses under Sections 323, 384, and 406, IPC. The Court noted that there was no material evidence to support the allegation of causing hurt, such as medical reports or treatment records. The ingredients necessary to constitute extortion and criminal breach of trust were absent in the chargesheet. The significant delay in filing the FIR and the lack of substantive evidence weakened the complainant’s case. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR and the chargesheet, setting aside the order of the High Court, and allowed the appeal.

The judgement underscores the importance of substantiating allegations with concrete evidence before proceeding with criminal prosecution. It reflects the judiciary’s role in preventing the misuse of legal provisions for personal vendetta, particularly in marital disputes. The decision to quash the FIR and the chargesheet was primarily driven by the lack of essential evidence and the significant delay in filing the FIR, which appeared to be retaliatory following the petitioner’s legal actions concerning the dissolution of marriage and child custody.

Conclusion

The judgement in Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh reaffirms the need for due diligence and robust evidence in criminal proceedings. It also highlights the judiciary’s vigilance in safeguarding individuals from baseless prosecutions, ensuring that the legal process is not weaponized for ulterior motives. This case serves as a critical reminder of the balance that courts must maintain between allowing legitimate legal grievances to be addressed and preventing harassment through frivolous litigation.

Judgement reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.

Click here to read the Judgement. 

 

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

0

Legal Examination of Signature Forgery In Cheque Dishonor: Delhi High Court.

Blog, Delhi High Court , , , , , ,

Case Title: ISHWAR SINGH versus VIDYA SHRI DEVI

Case No.: CRL.L.P. 1/2024, CRL.M.A. 18/2024

Dated on: FEBRUARY 29, 2024

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

Facts:

In this case, Ishwar Singh filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) in 2016, alleging that Vidya Shri Devi, representing M/s Safemax Industries, issued a cheque for Rs. 3,26,729 as a refund for a failed construction project. The cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite issuing a demand notice, no payment was made, leading to the filing of the complaint. The trial court convicted Vidya Shri Devi, but the appellate court acquitted her, accepting her defense that the cheque was stolen and her signature was forged, as supported by an FSL report. Ishwar Singh’s petition for leave to appeal the acquittal was dismissed by the High Court.

Issues framed by the Court:

  • Whether the delay of 54 days in filing the petition should be condoned.
  • Whether the respondent, Vidya Shri Devi, issued the cheque in question and whether the signatures on the cheque were genuine.
  • Whether the respondent successfully rebutted the presumption that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
  • Whether the evidence, including the FSL report and testimonies, sufficiently supports the respondent’s defense that the cheque was stolen and not issued by her.
  • Whether the petitioner, Ishwar Singh, provided adequate evidence to prove that the cheque was issued by the respondent and to counter the respondent’s claims and the FSL report.
  • Whether the appellate court’s decision to acquit the respondent was justified.

Legal Provisions:

Section 5 of the Limitation Act: Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.

Section 138 NI Act: It states about the offence of dishonoring a cheque for insufficiency of funds or exceeding the arranged amount.

Contentions of the Appellant:

The appellant, contended that the trial court had rightly convicted the respondent, Vidya Shri Devi, under Section 138 of the NI Act, as she had issued a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. He argued that the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, which assumes the cheque was issued for a discharge of liability and was not adequately rebutted by the respondent. Ishwar Singh challenged the respondent’s defense that the cheque was stolen and her signature was forged, asserting that this claim was not proven during the trial. He also contended that the FSL report, which indicated that the signatures on the cheque did not match the respondent’s specimen signatures, should not be considered conclusive. He emphasized that the respondent’s consistent denial and the corroborative testimonies were insufficient to outweigh the statutory presumption in his favor.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The respondent, Vidya Shri Devi, contended that she did not issue the cheque in question and that her signatures on the cheque were forged. She maintained that the cheque, along with several others, was stolen by an employee. To support her defense, she presented the testimony of her husband and a bank witness, as well as an FSL report which concluded that the signatures on the cheque did not match her specimen signatures. She argued that the cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds rather than signature mismatch, and highlighted the lack of evidence from the petitioner to prove the cheque was issued by her.

Court’s Analysis & Judgement:

The court analyzed whether the respondent, Vidya Shri Devi, successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act that the cheque was issued for a valid liability. The court noted that the respondent consistently maintained that the cheque was stolen, supported by an FSL report indicating the signatures did not match her sample signatures. The petitioner, Ishwar Singh, failed to contest the FSL report or cross-examine the relevant witnesses. The court found that mere assertions by the petitioner were insufficient to override the respondent’s evidence and expert opinion. Citing the principle that an appellate court should be cautious in overturning an acquittal unless the trial court’s decision is perverse or irrational, the court upheld the appellate court’s acquittal of the respondent. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Shramana Sengupta

Click here to view Judgement

0

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Continuation of Trial Proceedings and Evidence Examination.

Blog , ,

Case Title: THE STATE OF ODISHA VERSUS NIRJHARINI PATNAIK @ MOHANTY & ANR.

Case No:  Special Leave to Petition (Crl.) No.5758 OF 2018

Decided on: 26th April, 2024

Quorum: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH

Facts of the case

Charges under certain sections of the Indian Penal Code are the result of a conspiracy involving the misappropriation of a general power of attorney (GPA) and property transactions . In order to fully ascertain the facts and evaluate the nature and scope of the alleged conspiracy, a comprehensive trial procedure is necessary, and the Court’s decision to quash the proceedings was ruled inadequate . It was brought to light that the respondents had manipulated papers such as Hata Patas and rent receipts in order to illegally transfer government land, which made a thorough investigation in a trial setting necessary . In order to learn the truth about the fraudulent schemes, the Court underlined how crucial it is to let the trial against the respondents continue .

Appellant Contentions

The State argues, citing the respondents’ professional real estate knowledge and the questionable character of the transactions, that the Court disregarded circumstantial evidence suggesting a larger conspiracy including the respondents . Furthermore, the State contended that the High Court had not sufficiently recognized the gravity of the violations and their consequences for public faith in land record administration and governance . The Court determined that the Court’s decision to halt the proceedings was founded on an insufficient analysis of the evidence, requiring a thorough trial procedure to fully expose the purported conspiracy.

Respondent Contentions

A strong prima facie case for additional investigation has been formed by the respondents, especially Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It was discovered that they were crucial to the abuse of the General Power of Attorney (GPA) and the ensuing property transactions . In order to enable and hide the fraudulent schemes involving government property, Respondent No. 1, the wife of Respondent No. 2, played a key role in the planning and execution of these transactions . They did this by taking use of their professional positions and industry influence. A thorough trial procedure is necessary to determine the truth about the purported conspiracy, as the Court’s decision to quash the proceedings was criticized for being founded on an inadequate analysis of the facts .

Court Analysis and Judgement

The Court’s decision to halt the proceedings was overturned by the Supreme Court, which also ordered that the trial against the respondents proceed in compliance with the law .The alleged conspiracy, the respondents’ involvement, and the harm to the public coffers all of which can only be ascertained by the Trial Court through a comprehensive review of the evidence and witnesses must be carefully examined during the trial process, the Court stressed .

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

Click here to read the judgement

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

“Even if a particular document is not disputed, the Court has the discretion to analyze the same in evidence”: SC

Blog, blog ,

Case title:- Pankaj Singh Versus State of Harayana

Case No:-CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1753/2023

Decided on:-March 21,2024

Quorum:- ABHAY S.OKA, J

Facts of the case:-

 In this instance, the rosecutrix was 28 years old at the time of the incident. The prosecutrix and the appellant-accused were both married. It is documented that the Prosecutrix held a degree. The prosecutrix made the allegation. Is that the appellant was her husband’s brother’s friend.She knew the appellant, for that reason. The appellant went to a place named Hansi on May 22, 2018, to see a physician.The appellant arrived as she was waiting to board a bus to return to Bhiwani, where she was lodging. He was heading to Bhiwani and asked the Prosecutrix to ride along in his automobile. Under the guise of experiencing stomach pain and he led the appellant to a room in the Jindal Guest House in Bhiwani so he could discharge himself. After forcing the door open from the inside, he had an intimate relationship with the Prosecutrix. He threatened to send her the offensive photos to her family if she told anybody about the situation after taking them.

Legal Provisions

The Offences punishable under Sections 342, 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.The maximum sentence imposed is life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC with a fine of Rs.1,00,00/-.It is against the appellant-accused for the Offences punishable under Sections 365, 354D(1)(ii) and 506 of the IPC.

Appellant Contentions:-

The Prosecutrix’s testimony as well as that of the other significant prosecution witnesses have been reviewed by the knowledgeable attorney representing the accused appellant. His submission is that the appellant-accused and the prosecutrix had a consensual relationship. He said that both the prosecutor and the accused went around, and it is acknowledged that the prosecutor accompanied the accused person voluntarily. He further argued that had the police presented the CCTV tape from the Jindal Guest House, the supposed site of the incident, it would have demonstrated that the appellant-accused and the prosecutrix had entered and exited the building with joy. His argument is that the Prosecutrix’s proof should be rejected.

Respondent Contentions:-

The State’s knowledgeable attorney defended the contested rulings. He argued that since the prosecutrix had proven there had been coerced sexual relations, her evidence could not be rejected on technical grounds. He also argued that as it is established law that the Prosecutrix cannot be injured, this version cannot be discounted on the grounds that she was not hurt. The Prosecutrix’s WhatsApp exchange with the accused appellant was cited by the Prosecutrix’s knowledgeable legal representation. In light of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he argued that even though the certificate required by Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was not produced regarding the WhatsApp conversation that was produced on record, the appellant-accused had not objected to its production. The WhatsApp exchange is acceptable as proof. He made use of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872’s Section 114A presumption. He stated that It would have to be assumed that the prosecutor’s consent was not obtained for the sexual encounter. He argued that the offense in this instance falls under sub-Section (2), clause (f), of Section 376 of the IPC. He further argued that the appellant-accused was in a position of trust as far as the Prosecutrix was concerned, meaning that clause (f) of sub-Section (2) of Section 376 of the IPC Will apply. As a result, he claimed, the presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act should be applied in this particular case. Additionally, he stated that no proof had been presented by the accused appellant to support his innocence. He stated that there is no need for intervention considering the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial court.

Judgement:-

In this case, It is nobody’s case that the appellant-accused was called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of the WhatsApp chats. Moreover, Sub-Section (3) of Section 294 of the Cr.PC indicates that even if a particular document is not disputed, the Court has the discretion to read or not to read the same in evidence without formal proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. The Court always has the power to require the signature to be proved. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Prosecutrix based on Section 294 of the Cr.PC has absolutely no merit. In any case, a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act has not been produced. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the impugned orders cannot be sustained, and they are hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant-accused is acquitted of the Charges framed against him. The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The appellant is on bail. Therefore, his bail bond shall stand cancelled.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

1 2 3