0

Dismiss the FIR due to lack of direct proof of bribe was legally unsustainable: Supreme court

Blog , ,

Case Title: SANJU RAJAN NAYAR Versus JAYARAJ & ANR

Case No: 8254/2023

Decided on: 23rd April, 2024

Quorum: THE HON’BLE JUDGE SANJAY KAROL and THE HON’BLE JUDGEPRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE

Facts of the case:

The case is an appeal against the Karnataka High Court’s ruling to suppress a formal complaint (FIR) concerning claims of bribery. The respondent was cleared in departmental proceedings, but the High Court improperly weighed the evidence . The appeal was granted by the Supreme Court, which overturned the High Court’s decision and enabled the FIR to finish as it should have . The Court stressed that all factual and legal disputes are available for additional discussion by the parties in front of the proper forum . Due to the damning evidence against the respondent not being taken into consideration, it was deemed legally unfeasible to quash the FIR

Appellant’s Contentions

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s arguments, accepted the appeal, overturned the High Court’s decision, and revoked the FIR quashing order . As a result, the FIR that was the subject of the proceedings was reinstated and allowed to proceed legally . The Court made it clear that all factual and legal disputes are still open for the parties to resolve in the proper forum at the right time . The decision was made because it was illegal to dismiss the FIR without taking into account evidence that could have implicated the respondent .

Respondent’s Contentions

The respondent, Jairaj, was cleared in departmental proceedings concerning a complaint of bribery demand, which resulted in the High Court of Karnataka nullifying the FIR against him . The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and reinstated the FIR for additional legal action after finding the High Court’s approach to be legally untenable for failing to take into account incriminating evidence, such as a pendrive that would have shown cooperation in the crime. The Court emphasized the necessity for a thorough legal process to address the matter, pointing out that the High Court had neglected to take important principles and facts into account.

Court Analysis and Judgement

The FIR and ruling in the case of Sri Jayaraj v. State of Karnataka were quashed by the Supreme Court, which granted the appeal against the High Court of Karnataka’s decision. As a result, the FIR under consideration for the proceedings is brought back to life in accordance with the legislation . The High Court disregarded important evidence, such as a pendrive that might have shown the accused’s involvement in the crime, in favor of dismissing the FIR because there was insufficient direct proof of the accused requesting payment or a bribe . The High Court’s approach was deemed legally unsustainable by the Court because it disregarded significant evidence that came to light throughout the investigation .

“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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

No false promise of marriage; Prosecutrix mature enough to foresee her actions: Supreme Court quashes the FIR alleging Rape

Blog , , , , ,

Case title – XXXX vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr

Case no. – Criminal Appeal No. 3431 OF 2023

Decided on – March 06, 2024

Quoram – Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal

Facts of the case

The respondent 2/complainant, a married women had filed an FIR under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC alleging that her tenant (appellant)  maintained physical relationship with her on a promise to marry her.

The appellant in the present case filed an appeal under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR against him. The High Court dismissed the petition filed by him. Subsequently, he filed an appeal before the Apex Court.

Court’s observation and analysis

Firstly, the Court noted the discrepancy in the FIR filed by the complainant and the statement recorded by her under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

In the FIR, the respondent/complainant stated that she managed her own cloth shop. As there was a dispute with her husband, she was living separately. She has a daughter aged 15 years. On 10.12.2018, she got divorce from her husband. In 2017, Sadbhav Company had taken first floor of their house on rent in which the appellant, who was working with the company, stayed. During spare time, the appellant used to meet her in the shop.

Gradually, the relations developed. The appellant proposed that in case she takes divorce, he will marry her. The complainant stated that after the divorce, on 10.01.2019, at about 11.00 PM, the appellant came to her room and had physical relations on false promise of marriage. When she insisted for marriage, he refused by saying that his family didn’t agree. Thereafter, the FIR was got recorded on 11.12.2020.

There was complete change in the stand of the complainant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The fact remains that the parties admittedly were in relations from 2017 onwards. Some alleged promise to marry came in January 2019, from where they started having physical relations. It has also come on record that it is not only the consent of the complainant which is clearly evident but also of the parents and daughter of the complainant as they were living in the same house, where allegedly the appellant and the complainant were having physical relations.

Secondly, the court observed that, in the FIR the complainant stated that she got divorce from her earlier husband on 10.12.2018. But, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that marriage between the appellant and the complainant was solemnized in a temple in January 2019. However, in actuality, the complainant obtained divorce from her husband in 2021, which reveals that the complainant re-married the appellant during subsistence of her earlier marriage.

Thirdly, on the basis of the FIR and the statement recorded, the Court inferred there was no promise to marry initially when the relationship started in the year 2017. Even on the dates when the complainant alleges that the parties had physical relations, she was already married to the appellant. The Court relied on the precedence in Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) and ruled that the appellant was not guilty in the instant case.

Judgement

The complainant had a child who was 15 years old and was 10 years older than the tenant. The Court pointed out that the complainant was a mature individual who could foresee her actions and take right decision.

The Court stated that she was matured and intelligent enough to understand the consequences of the moral and immoral acts for which she consented during subsistence of her earlier marriage. Therefore, the Court held that the initiation of rape proceedings against the appellant was an abuse of process of law and quashed the FIR against the appellant.

“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 – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

0

Criminal proceedings can only be initiated against a public servant based on the recommendation of the administrative enquiry: Delhi High Court.

blog, Blog , , ,

Case title: Bijendar Singh Vs State & Anr.

Case no.: CRL. A. 292/2020

Decided on: 08.02.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice V. Kameswar Rao, Hon’ble Justice Saurabh Banerjee

 

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The current appeal stems from the order of a special judge of the SC/ST court. The complainant filed an application under sections 4 and 3(2) (vi) and (vii) of the SC/ST Act, as well as sections 217 and 218 of the IPC, against an investigation officer who failed to appear in court for the hearing and also for no arresting the accused. The court ordered to file an FIR against the appellant.

 LEGAL PROVISIONS:

The SC/ST Act’s Section 4 discusses the penalties for public servants who fail to perform their duties.

No inquiry or approval is necessary in order to file a First Information Report (FIR) against any individual, according to Section 18A (1) of the SC/ST Act.  

Section 15A(11)(i) of the SC/ST Act states that it is the State’s duty and responsibility to specify a scheme for providing a free copy of the chargesheet.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The counsel for the appellant argued that the SC/ST Act’s proviso, which states that a public servant may only be booked based on the recommendation of an administrative inquiry, was disregarded and overlooked by the learned special court. It must be acknowledged that at the time the contested order was issued, the learned special court had not yet requested or received any such report, and the contested order was issued without it.

He argued that the complainant’s grievances in the application are completely baseless and would not constitute a violation of the SC/ST Act. The complainant’s complaint that the appellant did not provide a copy of the chargesheet to him is without merit because the non-supply of the chargesheet does not violate any of the provisions of the SC/ST Act alleged by the complainant.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

They contended that the provision in Section 4(2) of the SC/ST Act requiring an administrative inquiry only applies to the stage of framing charges, not the registration of a FIR. Furthermore, Section 4 must be read in conjunction with Section 18A and the overreaching object of the SC/ST Act. As a result, the impugned order of the learned special court cannot be challenged on the basis that it did not follow the procedure outlined in Section 4 because it was for the registration of a FIR rather than the framing of charges.

The counsel further contends that the appellant did not arrest the accused persons in accordance with the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar, but that the appellant failed to consider the recent judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 4 SCC 761, which held that where there is no provision for anticipatory bail, arrest must be made. The appellant did not comply with Arnesh Kumar’s requirement to provide reasons for not arresting the accused, which was mandatory.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court held that, while it is true that the accused has no right to be heard prior to the registration of the FIR, the SC/ST Act is a special act that supersedes the general provisions of Cr.P.C, and the proviso to section 4(2) clearly mandates that charges against public servants be booked only based on the recommendations of the administrative enquiry.

Based on various judgements, the court determined that the appellant, as the IO, has the discretion to arrest or not arrest the accused individuals based on the evidence gathered and the gravity of the offences. Also, once the appellant, who is an IO, files the chargesheet, the Magistrate cannot question the decision not to arrest the accused persons.

The court made it clear that this decision is solely for the purpose of deciding the appeal and will not interfere with the complainant’s case before the learned special court.
The appeal is granted, and any pending applications are resolved in accordance with the terms outlined above.

 

“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.”

 

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

 

Click here to read judgment

0

Unscrupulous Litigants Should Not Go Scot-Free: Supreme Court

blog, Blog , , , , ,

Case title: Dinesh Gupta vs The state of Uttarpradesh

Case no.: S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022

Decided on: 11.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Owner of M/s D.D. Global Capital Pvt. Ltd., Karan Gambhir has filed a First Information Report (FIR) against Sushil, Rajesh, Dinesh, Baljeet Singh, and other individuals. Among the private limited companies implicated are BDR, Gulab Buildtech, and Verma Buildtech. To reverse the summons order and FIR, Dinesh and Rajesh Gupta filed a petition in High Court. According to the complaint, Karan’s business gave Gulab Buildtech and Verma Buildtech short-term loans that were later converted into debt equity with the promise of large returns.

Despite purportedly forging a share pledge agreement, the complainant was able to secure a sizeable shareholding. Unannounced approval of amalgamation plans decreased the company’s ownership stake. Lawsuit after the accused disregarded the complainant’s requests for loan repayment. IPC Sections 420, 467, and 120-B are the subject of a charge sheet that the police have filed. The appeals took place after the High Court denied the petitions to set aside the summoning order and FIR.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The appellant contended that a purely civil dispute involving financial transactions between corporations is being framed as a criminal case. Despite the fact that the company has no connection to Gautam Budh Nagar and that all transactions between the parties took place in New Delhi, the complaint was filed in Gautam Budh Nagar.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

They claimed that the accused, working together, defrauded the complainant of crores of rupees by falsely promising higher returns. The High Court’s order contains no errors. The appeals are well-deservedly dismissed.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court determined that if the FIR in question is pursued further, it will constitute an absolute abuse of court process. This is a clear case of malicious prosecution. Regardless of the commercial nature of the dispute, a criminal complaint was filed and a FIR was registered. Abuse of power and legal machinery undermines public trust in the judiciary. FIR and criminal proceedings were quashed, and the complainant was fined ₹25 lakhs to prevent future abuse of judicial remedies.

The court ruled that the respondents should be subject to stringent terms and conditions, including costs. It’s time to firmly examine any lawsuits that have been started and are riddled with deceit, secrecy, and forum shopping. Even state actions or the conduct of government servants who are parties to such malicious litigation should be severely reprimanded. Turning a civil matter into a criminal case not only overburdens the criminal justice system, but also violates the principles of fairness and proper legal conduct.

 

“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.”

 

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

 

Click here to read the judgement

0

Understanding the First Information Report-(FIR)

Articles , ,

INTRODUCTION

The First Information Report, commonly referred to as FIR, which is a crucial legal document to initiate a criminal proceedings. It serves as the primary information to the law enforcement agencies to record the information about the alleged criminal activity. This article aims to clear the understanding of FIR, exploring its significance, procedure of filing FIR and role of FIR in the criminal justice system.

 

What is an FIR?

An FIR is written document which records the information about the cognizable offences like robbery, murder, theft, etc.

Procedure of filing an FIR.

In India the FIR is governed by the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 154. of the Cr.P.C. deals with the Information in cognizable cases. According to the section, informer will go to the officer in charge of Police Station and will give him the information about the cognizable offence. The information may be oral or in writing. If the information given to the officer is oral then Officer in Charge will write it down after that he will read out the whole complaint to the informer and will take the sign of the informer on the FIR which Officer has written down. One copy of FIR must be given to the informer free of cost and Officer has to maintain the FIR in his diary for the record as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.

Provided that if the information is given by the women against whom an offence under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354c, section 354D , section 376, section 376A, section 376AB,  section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB, section 376E, or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) alleged to have been committed or attempted , then such information shall be recorded by women police officer.

In the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 354, section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB, section 376E or section 509 of Indian Penal Code ( 45 of 1860),  is alleged to have been committed or attempted , is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled then in such cases the such information shall be recorded at the residence of such person who seeking to report such offences or at the choice of place of such person in the presence an interpreter or a special educator as the case may be

Section 155. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with FIR in non- cognizable offences, in non –cognizable offences the informer or the complainant will go to the officer in charge of the police station and will give him the information about the alleged offence in written form or orally and will write it down and seek the permission of Magistrate to investigate the matter, without the order of Magistrate there is no power to investigate in the matter.

If the information has given to the officer in charge of the police station contain the information of cognizable and non-cognizable offences then the information will be dealt as cognizable offence.

Step to be taken if the police do not register FIR

According to the sub section 3 of section 154 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If any person aggrieved by refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the FIR as referred in sub section 1 of the code, may send the substance of such information , in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned, who if satisfied that the information discloses the commission of cognizable offence , shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation made by any police officer subordinate to him.

Cases

In Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. , (2013)

The court orders that officer in charge of police station is bound to register an FIR, and within 24 hours of time span officer has to update the copy of FIR on online portal of the State where FIR can be shown.

“  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 consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by:- Aamir Hussain

References:

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 OF 1974), UNIVERSAL’S BARE ACT.

The Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (2 of  1974), RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL.

1 2