Section 138 N.I. Act – Dishonour of cheque – Liability of Director – Resignation before issuance of cheque – Quashing of complaint – Held, where the appellant had resigned from the post of Director prior to the issuance of post-dated cheques by the company, and the cheques were signed by another competent person, the appellant could not be held liable under Section 138 of...
Section 138 N.I. Act – Dishonour of cheque – Liability of Director – Resignation before issuance of cheque – Quashing of complaint – Held, where the appellant had resigned from the post of Director prior to the issuance of post-dated cheques by the company, and the cheques were signed by another competent person, the appellant could not be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was undisputed that the appellant resigned on 21.06.2019 and the resignation was acknowledged by the Registrar of Companies on 26.06.2019, whereas the cheques were issued on 12.07.2019. Therefore, the appellant was not in charge of or responsible for the affairs of the company at the relevant time. The judgment of Malva Cotton and Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Virsa Singh Sidhu (2008) 17 SCC 147 was distinguished on facts, as in that case, the resignation was submitted after the issuance of the cheques. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court dismissing the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was set aside. The complaints under Section 138 NI Act against the appellant were quashed. Appeals Allowed. Adhiraj Singh v. Yograj Singh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 75
Section 142 N.I. Act - Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the complaint under Section 138 NI Act on the ground of lack of specific averments regarding the personal knowledge of the power of attorney holder in the complaint and supporting documents. The High Court relied on the decision in A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 11 SCC 790 to hold that the power of attorney holder lacked personal knowledge of the facts giving rise to the proceedings, as there were no specific pleadings to that effect in the Letter of Authority or affidavits. However, a conjoint reading of the Letter of Authority, the verifying affidavit, and the affidavit of evidence under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. demonstrated that the manager and power of attorney holder of the appellant-firm, had personal knowledge of the transactions and was duly authorized to file the complaint. The complaint satisfied the requirements of Section 142 of the NI Act as it was filed by the payee through its authorized representative. The High Court's reliance on inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint was unwarranted and contrary to the settled principle that such powers should be exercised sparingly and not interfere with a fair trial. The High Court erred in quashing the complaint based on incorrect reasoning and lack of due consideration. The appeal was allowed, and the complaint was restored to the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for adjudication on merits. Appeal allowed. Judgment and order of the High Court quashed and set aside. Complaint restored for fresh adjudication. Naresh Potteries v. Aarti Industries, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1 : 2025 INSC 1 : AIR 2025 SC 886
Section 154 Cr.P.C. - In the present case, the allegations against the appellant pertain to the abuse of official position and corrupt practices while holding public office. Such allegations fall squarely within the category of cognizable offences, and there exists no legal requirement for a preliminary inquiry before the registration of an FIR in such cases. The appellant's contention that successive FIRs have been registered against him with an ulterior motive is a matter that can be examined during the course of investigation and trial. The appellant has adequate remedies under the law, including the right to seek quashing of frivolous FIRs under Section 482 CrPC, the right to apply for bail, and the right to challenge any illegal actions of the investigating authorities before the appropriate forum. (Para 13) Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 315 : 2025 INSC 350 : AIR 2025 SC 1940 : (2025) 4 SCC 818
Section 154 Cr.P.C. - Registration of FIR - It is the duty of the police to register an FIR if a prima facie cognizable offence is made out - The police are not required to go into the genuineness and credibility of information - High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC is not absolutely barred by the availability of alternative remedies - Held that when allegations pertain to the abuse of an official position and corrupt practices by public servants, such actions fall squarely within the category of cognizable offences that need to be inquired into - A preliminary inquiry is not necessary before the registration of an FIR in such cases - Report of a preliminary inquiry is not a conclusive report to be relied upon to oust a Constitutional Court's power to conclude that a cognizable offence has been committed - It is high time that those who investigate are also investigated to keep the public's faith in the system. [Paras 26 - 32] Vinod Kumar Pandey v. Seesh Ram Saini, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 887 : 2025 INSC 1095
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - Exhaustion of remedy - Whether an application under section 156(3) of CrPC could have been filed without approaching the police authorities – Held, the informant must first approach the officer-in-charge of the police station under section 154 CrPC, and if refused, then the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC - Only after exhausting these remedies can the informant approach the Magistrate under section 156(3) CrPC - Magistrates ought not to ordinarily entertain such application directly, doing so is a “mere procedural irregularity” - therefore the order would not be “without jurisdiction” or “vitiated on this count” - Order merely set the criminal law in motion and caused no prejudice to the petitioner - The Magistrate's satisfaction that a cognizable offence was disclosed, even if wrongly recorded, should not be interfered with by the higher courts in inherent powers - Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226/227 of Constitution are discretionary and not obligatory for minor procedural irregularities, especially when there is no miscarriage of justice - Upheld order of High Court refusing to quash the order - Petitions dismissed. [Paras 19-22 28-33, 41] Anurag Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 742 : 2025 INSC 895
Section 306, 107 IPC - Quashing of FIR / Criminal Proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. - Core Ingredients – Refusal to Marry -Held, to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, two basic ingredients must be present: suicidal death and abetment thereof - Abetment, as defined under Section 107 IPC, requires either instigation, conspiracy, or intentionally aiding the doing of a thing - Conviction under Section 306 IPC requires a clear mens rea and an active or direct act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid the commission of suicide, which must have led the deceased to commit suicide leaving no option - Mere refusal to marry, even if true, by itself, would not amount to 'instigation' as explained under Section 107 of the IPC - His refusal to marry, or even his statement that he "does not care in case she dies" made when the deceased threatened suicide, could not be said to have been made with the intention to push the deceased into a situation where she was left with no option but to commit suicide - The ingredients necessary to constitute the offence of abetment punishable under Section 306 IPC were not borne out - Putting the accused to trial would be a travesty of justice and an empty formality - Appeal allowed. [Relied on Nipun Aneja and Others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh SCC OnLine SC 4091; Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 144; Paras 15, 17-21] Yadwinder Singh @ Sunny v. State of Punjab, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1058
Section 362 Cr.P.C. – Review - Held, High Court in its inherent jurisdiction cannot invoke to override the bar of review under Section 362 CrPC - High Courts, while exercising their inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, cannot override a specific bar laid down by other provisions of CrPC - The inherent power of the High Court to make orders as it deems fit to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice should be exercised having regard to the situation prevailing at the particular point of time and restrictions imposed by section 362 CrPC. [Paras 14, 15, 16, 17] M.C. Ravikumar v. D.S. Velmurugan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 737 : 2025 INSC 888
Section 376 IPC - Rape - Consent - Promise of Marriage - Quashing of Proceedings – The Court reiterated that a breach of a promise to marry does not automatically amount to rape unless fraudulent intent existed at the time of consent. Relationship between appellant and complainant, both major and closely related, was consensual, as evidenced by repeated interactions and voluntary visits to hotel. High Court erred in not exercising inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process. Proceedings quashed. (Para 11 - 13) Jothiragawan v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 347 : 2025 INSC 386
Section 439 Cr.P.C. - Cancellation of bail - Whether High Court can entertain a second application for cancellation of bail after rejection by the Sessions Judge – Held, there is no bar on the High Court exercising inherent powers under Section 482 r/w. 439(2) CrPC to entertain such application, even if one was rejected by the Sessions Judge - No restriction arises if the application is moved under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. [Para 14, 15] Abhimanue v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 929 : 2025 INSC 1136
Section 482, 156 (3) Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Scope of High Court's Power - Investigation by Police – Held, the power under Section 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before taking cognizance and is in the nature of a pre-emptory reminder to the police to exercise its plenary power of investigation - The Magistrate is justified in adopting this course if the allegations disclose a cognizable offense, and forwarding the complaint for investigation "will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate” - Direction under Section 156(3) is issued when on account of credibility of information available, or weighing the interest of justice it is considered appropriate to straightaway direct investigation - When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made, the High Court only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offense and must permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR - When facts are hazy and investigation has just begun, the High Court should be circumspect and allow the police to proceed - Order of High Court set aside and FIR restored, Police were directed to investigate the case expeditiously - Appeal allowed. [Relied on Ramdev Food Products Private Limited v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439; Madhao v State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 615; Paras 34-43] Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1064 : 2025 INSC 1282
Section 482 and 156 Cr.P.C. - CBI Investigation - High Courts should not order CBI investigation in a routine manner or on basis of vague allegations. Mere bald allegations against the incompetence of the local police to investigate the case without any kind of substantiation would not justify the transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Court set aside the High Court's decision which had transferred the investigation from local police to CBI based on bald allegations of the complainant that the local police was incompetent to investigate the case. The High Courts should direct for CBI investigation only in cases where material prima facie discloses something calling for an investigation by CBI. The “ifs” and “buts” without any definite conclusion are not sufficient to put an agency like CBI into motion. (Para 8 & 9) Vinay Aggarwal v. State of Haryana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 417 : 2025 INSC 433 : (2025) 5 SCC 149
Section 482 and 156 Cr.P.C. - CBI Investigation - In the present, an FIR was registered against the appellant for impersonating an IB officer and extorting ₹1.49 crore from the complainant, respondent no. 3. The complainant sought a transfer of investigation to the CBI, alleging collusion between the appellant and the police. The High Court allowed this transfer. Setting aside the High Court's decision, the Court noted the High Court's decision to transfer investigation to CBI was based on vague allegations (appellant's acquaintance with police) without substantiated evidence. The Court found that the investigation into the case was underway by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), and there was no evidence suggested by the complainant that the local police were incapable or biased. After going through the records of the case, held, that the present case is not the one where CBI investigation ought to have been directed by the High Court. Resultantly, the appeal was allowed. (Para 2 - 9) Vinay Aggarwal v. State of Haryana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 417 : 2025 INSC 433 : (2025) 5 SCC 149
Section 482 and 156 Cr.P.C. - Contempt of Court - CBI Investigation - Breach of Stay Order - CBI registered FIR despite Supreme Court's interim stay - Contempt petition filed - CBI officer offered unconditional apology, citing mistake - Remedial steps taken - Apology accepted, contempt petition disposed. (Para 12) Vinay Aggarwal v. State of Haryana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 417 : 2025 INSC 433 : (2025) 5 SCC 149
Section 482 and 197 Cr.P.C. - Penal Code, 1860; Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B) - Madhya Pradesh Griha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972; Section 83 - The appellant, an official of the Madhya Pradesh State Housing Board, was implicated in a criminal case involving allegations of forgery and cheating related to the transfer of property. The appellant sought quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which was refused by the High Court. Whether the appellant, as a public servant, was protected under Section 83 of the Madhya Pradesh Griha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972, akin to Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., which requires prior sanction for prosecution of public servants for acts done in their official capacity. Whether the allegations against the appellant, including conspiracy and forgery, were substantiated by evidence. Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed in light of the civil nature of the dispute and the absence of mens rea on the part of the appellant. Held, offences in the chargesheet cannot be based on bald assertions of connivance. There must be some substance to it. The appellant's actions were in furtherance of his official duties, and there was no evidence to suggest that he acted with any dishonest intent or knowledge of the alleged forgery. The allegations of conspiracy and forgery were not substantiated by the chargesheet or witness statements, and no prima facie case was made out against the appellant. The case was essentially civil in nature, and the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the process of law. The High Court erred in refusing to quash the FIR, as the ingredients of the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 120-B IPC were not met. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside. All proceedings arising from the FIR and subsequent chargesheet were quashed. Dinesh Kumar Mathur v. State of M.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 20 : 2025 INSC 16 : AIR 2025 SC (Crl.) 617
Section 482 and 438 - Penal Code, 1860; Sections 409, 219 and 114 - Criminal Breach of Trust and Corrupt Practices - Misuse of Official Position - Anticipatory Bail - Quashing of FIR - The appellant, a retired IAS officer and former District Collector, was accused of misuse of official position in restoring government land to private allottees despite their ineligibility. The High Court rejected his plea for quashing the FIR and anticipatory bail, citing prima facie evidence of criminal breach of trust and abuse of power - Supreme Court dismissed appeal against refusal to quash, holding serious allegations warrant thorough investigation - The appellant's order condoning a seven-year delay and favoring private parties despite their absence from India raised serious concerns - Held, Courts must refrain from quashing FIRs at the investigation stage unless there is an evident abuse of process. Actions performed in an official capacity may still attract criminal liability if they indicate misuse of authority. In cases involving documentary evidence / official records, custodial interrogation may not always be required. Anticipatory bail granted. (Para 17 & 18) Pradeep N. Sharma v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 263 : 2025 INSC 291
Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Inherent Powers of High Court) — Quashing of Proceedings — Double Jeopardy - Lodging of Two FIRs/Complaints - Held that the High Court ought to have invoked its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings initiated by the second private complaint, as the proceedings were vexatious and the issue of double jeopardy would arise, dealing with the liberty of a person - The lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one and the same incident - The prohibition extends to any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same accused subsequent to the registration of a case under the Code, for an investigation would have already commenced, and allowing further registration would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint - Appeal allowed. [Relied on Surender Kaushik & Ors vs State Of U.P & Ors. (2013) 5 SCC 148] Ranimol v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1148
Section 482 Cr.P.C.- Aircraft Act, 1934 - Section 12B - Investigation by Local Police - The appeals challenged the High Court's judgment quashing an FIR registered against the respondents, including a Member of Parliament, for alleged offences under Sections 336, 447, and 448 IPC and Sections 10 and 11A of the Aircraft Act, 1934. The FIR alleged that the respondents forcibly entered the Air Traffic Control (ATC) room at Deoghar Airport and pressured officials to grant take-off clearance for their chartered flight after sunset, violating airport security protocols. The High Court quashed the FIR, holding that it was vitiated by mala fides and that allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the legal process. The court noted that the Aircraft Act, 1934, is a complete code, and the IPC provisions were not applicable. It also observed that the respondents, including a sitting MP and members of aviation committees, had no role in influencing the ATC clearance, which was granted by the Kolkata ATC. Held, the allegations did not make out offences under Sections 336, 447, or 448 IPC. The respondents' actions did not amount to rash or negligent behavior endangering human life (Section 336 IPC), nor did they involve criminal trespass or unlawful entry (Sections 447 and 448 IPC). The Aircraft Act, 1934, and its rules constitute a complete code for aviation safety and security. Section 12B of the Act mandates that cognizance of offences can only be taken on a complaint by authorized aviation authorities, not by the local police. The local police could only forward the material collected during the investigation to the authorized officer under the Aircraft Act, who would then decide whether to file a complaint. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision to quash the FIR. However, it granted liberty to the State to forward the investigation material to the authorized officer under the Aircraft Act within four weeks for further action, if deemed necessary. The FIR was quashed, and the respondents were cleared of the charges under IPC and the Aircraft Act. The Court reinforced the primacy of the Aircraft Act, 1934, in matters of aviation security and the limited role of local police in such cases. State of Jharkhand v. Nishikant Dubey, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 101
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Allegations of financial fraud involving misappropriation of funds by accused, including CFO of the company, through misrepresentation of GST liabilities – High Court quashed proceedings against respondent citing lack of evidence. Held, quantum of money involved irrelevant for quashing of criminal proceedings. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, without assessing veracity of allegations or conducting mini-trial – Corroborated statements of respondent and co-accused admitting receipt of the money, along with respondent's role in company finances, established prima facie case – High Court's order set aside, proceedings revived. (Para 13) Hyeoksoo Son v. Moon June Seok, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 420 : 2025 INSC 474
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Attempt to transform civil dispute into criminal matter - Workplace harassment case – Held, allegations stemmed from employment disputes exaggerated into a criminal matter. The proceedings were a deliberate attempt to reclassify a civil dispute as a cognizable criminal offense to pressure the appellants into settling. The complainant alleged forcible demand for resignation, confiscation of belongings, and physical and verbal harassment, invoking Sections 323, 504, 506, 509, and 511 of the IPC. The complaint lacking essential facts to substantiate these offenses and mala fide intentions to coerce a settlement. The High Court's refusal to quash the proceedings was set aside, and the criminal case against the appellants was quashed. (Para 38 - 41) Madhushree Datta v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 108 : 2025 INSC 105 : (2025) 3 SCC 612
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) - Section 528 - Quashing of FIR - FIR alleging rape on the pretext of marriage quashed - where the complaint appeared to be a vindictive act following administrative proceedings against the complainant – Supreme Court reiterates that inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) should be invoked to prevent abuse of process of law - Supreme Court noted that FIR was lodged 4 months after the alleged incident and after the issuance of the show-cause notice to the complainant - The sequence of events and timing suggested the complainant was an afterthought and instrument of vengeance, not a bona fide prosecution - Held that once ulterior motive is apparent, the Court must go beyond the formal averments of the FIR and examine attending circumstances to detect mala fides - Held that FIR and subsequent charge-sheet were manifestly attended with mala fides and constituted abuse of process - Appeal allowed. [Paras 12- 15] Surendra Khawse v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 968 : 2025 INSC 1143
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Constitution of India; Article 21 - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Right to Speedy Investigation – Held, criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed under the inherent power of the High Court when there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in completing the investigation, which violates the accused's right under Article 21 of the Constitution - The cumulative effect of a vitiated sanction under Section 197 CrPC and an unexplained delay of 15 years in investigation warrants the quashing of criminal proceedings - Supreme Court issued directions - i. To file a supplementary chargesheet is a part of section 173(8) CrPC; Court is not rendered functus office having granted such permission; ii. Reasons are indispensable to the proper functioning of the machinery of criminal law; iii. If investigation into a particular offence has continued for a period that appears to be unduly long, that too without adequate justification, such as in this case, the accused or the complainant both, shall be at liberty to approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS/482 CrPC, seeking an update on the investigation or, if the doors of the High Court have been knocked by the accused, quashing. It is clarified that delay in completion of investigation will only function as one of the grounds, and the Court, if in its wisdom, decides to entertain this application, other grounds will also have to be considered. [Relied on Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A.P. (1979) 4 SCC 172; Paragraph 21- 23] Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu v. State of Bihar, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1128 : 2025 INSC 1339
Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Constitution of India – Article 226 & 32 – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Second FIR - Held that the Court has a self-imposed discipline to ordinarily direct petitioners to the High Court, Article 32, being a fundamental right, cannot be rendered nugatory. The Supreme Court can entertain a petition under Article 32 to quash an FIR in glaring cases of deprivation of liberty - The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not restricted to the stage of the FIR; the High Court/Supreme Court can exercise jurisdiction even when a charge-sheet has been filed, to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice - A second FIR in respect of the same cognizable offence or an occurrence that constitutes a single, composite transaction is not maintainable. Subsequent complaints that are merely counter-versions, modifications, or supplemental in nature to the first one must be treated as a part of the first FIR and investigated accordingly. [Relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) 335; Para 84, 95, 100-105, 145] Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1021 : 2025 INSC 1249
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Economic offences constitute a distinct class, requiring High Courts to exercise caution while quashing FIRs at an early stage. Reversing the High Court decision that quashed criminal proceedings against a company director involved in alleged economic offences, the Court emphasized that such cases, involving dummy/shell companies and significant monetary transactions, warrant thorough investigation. The Court reiterated that the wide discretionary powers under Section 482 CrPC should not be used arbitrarily to stifle legitimate investigations, particularly when economic offences threaten the financial health of the country. The appeal was allowed, directing the trial court to proceed in accordance with law. [Paras 21 - 25] Dinesh Sharma v. Emgee Cables and Communication Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 492 : 2025 INSC 571
Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Held, High Court cannot grant anticipatory bail by recalling initial order of dismissal - Such restoration is impermissible and contrary to law - the Court emphasized that once an application for anticipatory bail is rejected with reasons, proceedings for recall / restoration is not permissible in law - Supreme Court set aside the recall order and left it open for parties to avail remedies available in law - Appeal allowed. [Paras 4 - 7] Gurvinder Singh v. Jasbir Singh @ Jasvir Singh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 924
Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Held, there is clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case where there is a promise of marriage, the Court must very carefully examine whether the accused actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust - Supreme Court lays down four-step test for High Courts to quash criminal cases - i. whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable and indubitable i.e. materials is of sterling and impeccable quality; ii. Whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of accusations as false; iii. Whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution / complaint and /or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution; iv. Whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice - If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC - Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial, especially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused - Supreme Court quashed summons issued to appellant for the offence of rape on false pretext of marriage on a complaint filed by complainant - Appeal allowed. [Paras 17-22] Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 880
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - High Courts, while exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC, cannot rely on or call for investigation reports, as this authority is exclusively vested with the Magistrate. The Court set aside the High Court's decision, which had relied on an investigation report to dismiss a quashing petition, reaffirming the principle laid down in Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi (2007) 12 SCC 369. The High Court's power under S. 482 is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, based solely on FIR allegations and undisputed facts, without interference at the investigation stage to avoid prejudicing the trial or the Magistrate's independent evaluation. Appeal allowed; criminal case quashed. (Para 8) Ashok Kumar Jain v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 516 : 2025 INSC 614
Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Courts can invoke their extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, in addition to inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, to quash criminal proceedings to prevent misuse of the legal process. (Paras 6, 7) Kim Wansoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 7 : 2025 INSC 8
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Inherent power of High Court - Quashing of criminal proceedings – Held, the pendency of a civil suit on the same subject matter, involving the same parties, does not justify quashing of criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons - the criminal law and civil law remedies are not mutually exclusive but co-extensive, different in content and consequence - the object of criminal law is to punish an offender, which does not affect civil remedies - Civil remedy available does not bar criminal prosecution - Court concluded that criminal trial is necessary to ensure justice to the appellant considering chain of events including exclusion of daughters from family tree and partition deed and misappropriating Rs. 33 crore compensation for ancestral land acquired by Bengaluru metro - Prima facie case for conspiracy and cheating exists against respondents - Set aside order passed by High court to quash criminal proceeding. Appeal allowed. [Paras 18, 19, 23] Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 712 : AIR 2025 SC 3316 : 2025 INSC 818
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Inherent power of High Court - Quashing of criminal proceedings – Held, the pendency of a civil suit on the same subject matter, involving the same parties, does not justify quashing of criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons - the criminal law and civil law remedies are not mutually exclusive but co-extensive, different in content and consequence - the object of criminal law is to punish an offender, which does not affect civil remedies - Civil remedy available does not bar criminal prosecution - Court concluded that criminal trial is necessary to ensure justice to the appellant considering chain of events including exclusion of daughters from family tree and partition deed and misappropriating Rs. 33 crore compensation for ancestral land acquired by Bengaluru metro - Prima facie case for conspiracy and cheating exists against respondents - Set aside order passed by High court to quash criminal proceeding. Appeal allowed. [Relied on K. Jagdish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. and another (2020) 14 SCC 552; Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another (1985) 2 SCC 370; Paras 18, 19, 23]. Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 712 : 2025 INSC 818
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Inherent power of High Court - Quashing of FIR - Gross abuse of process of law - Escrow and Settlement Transaction Agreement was entered in 2007 between Corsair and Katra and appellant-bank. Respondent-Victor Program Ltd. agreed to sell 13,455 shares of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank for Rs. 32,53,68,810/-. Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank approved transfer of shares and shares were deposited with appellant-bank. Respondent- Vector after completion of said transaction received a sum of Rs. 32,53,68,810/- on 15.05.2007. Respondent-Vector filed a civil suit in 2011 seeking termination of Escrow Agreement and return of said shares and filed criminal complaint in 2016. Held, High Court could have exercised its inherent powers under section 482 CrPC for quashing proceedings against appellant-bank. There were no materials to support the FIR and many transactions were suppressed. It is not in dispute that respondent-Vector signed the documents, transferred the shares and received the money. All these transactions were complete way back on 15.05.2007. There is no contra-material to hold that any other criminal proceedings have been initiated against the appellants. High Court has not considered the relevant materials in their correct perspective. The power under section 482 CrPC shall be invoked when the pendency of criminal proceedings would result in a gross abuse of process of law. This is a fit case where High Court ought to have exercised the said power. Appeal Allowed. Standard Chartered Bank v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 661
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Inherent Power - Quashing of FIR - Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) - Section 318 -Cheating - Criminal breach of trust - High Court directed accused-appellant to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs for referring the matter to mediation in plea for FIR quashing- Supreme Court quashed FIR and set aside order of High Court - Held that High Court's role in a petition for quashing an FIR is to examine the averments and allegations in FIR and other materials on record to determine if an offence is disclosed and not to facilitate recovery of money - Supreme Court criticized approach of High Court and held that it should either allow the petition for quashing saying that no offence is disclosed or may reject the petition saying that no case for quashing is made out - Supreme Court noted that to constitute an offence of cheating under Section 318 BNS, there must be prima facie evidence to indicate an intention to cheat from the inception and a mere civil dispute cannot be converted to a criminal case - Held that the case appeared to be a civil dispute arising from an oral agreement and no civil suit is filed for recovery - Appeal allowed. [Relied on Delhi Race Club Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 10 SCC 690; State of Haryana & ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335; Paras 9-15] Shailesh Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 726 : 2025 INSC 869
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Inherent power - Quashing of FIR – Held - Supreme Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 10 lakhs on Complainant, citing misusing process of criminal law by filing a false and baseless FIR stemming from a purely civil dispute - Supreme Court expressed shock over the fact that appellant, a 70 year old lady was arrested and humiliated in police custody for 8 days - Held that bare reading of FIR, it is clear that a plain and simple dispute involving non-execution of a registered sale deed in terms of oral agreement to sell has been given cloak of criminal machinery - Supreme court condemned High Court's approach in casually disposing of the petition filed by appellants, without addressing the merits of the matter to be absolutely laconic and perfunctory - Quashed FIR and Set aside order of High Court. Appeal allowed. [Paras 12, 13,15-17, 21] Mala Choudhary v. State of Telangana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 725 : 2025 INSC 870
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Inherent powers of High Court - Quashing of FIR - Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 376 – Rape – Issue - Whether an offence under Section 376 IPC can be quashed upon an application filed by accused citing amicable settlement between victim and accused - Appellantaccused contended that the Complainant filed an affidavit in 2nd FIR expressing her unwillingness to pursue prosecution, stating that matter has been amicably resolved and that Complainant received Rs. 5 lakhs towards marriage related expenses - High Court dismissed the application on ground that an offence under section 376 IPC is serious and non-compoundable and could not be quashed based on a settlement or monetary compensation – Held - that criminal proceedings related to rape offences can be quashed based on settlement between parties in exceptional circumstances - Offence under section 376 IPC is grave and heinous nature and quashing of proceedings involving such offences on ground of settlement between parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly - the power of courts under section 482 CrPC to secure ends of justice is not constrained by rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case - Court noted that Complainant is married and settled in her personal life and continuing with criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability - Complainant maintained her stand that she does not support prosecution and wants the matter to end - in this situation if matter is continued then it would only prolong distress - Considering peculiar facts of this case and nature of settlement, order of High Court is set aside. Appeals allowed. [Paras 3, 5-9] Madhukar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 710 : 2025 INSC 819
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Inherent powers of High Court - Quashing of FIR - Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 376 – Rape – Issue - Whether an offence under Section 376 IPC can be quashed upon an application filed by accused citing amicable settlement between victim and accused - Appellantaccused contended that the Complainant filed an affidavit in 2nd FIR expressing her unwillingness to pursue prosecution, stating that matter has been amicably resolved and that Complainant received Rs. 5 lakhs towards marriage related expenses - High Court dismissed the application on ground that an offence under section 376 IPC is serious and non-compoundable and could not be quashed based on a settlement or monetary compensation – Held - that criminal proceedings related to rape offences can be quashed based on settlement between parties in exceptional circumstances - Offence under section 376 IPC is grave and heinous nature and quashing of proceedings involving such offences on ground of settlement between parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly - the power of courts under section 482 CrPC to secure ends of justice is not constrained by rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case - Court noted that Complainant is married and settled in her personal life and continuing with criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability - Complainant maintained her stand that she does not support prosecution and wants the matter to end - in this situation if matter is continued then it would only prolong distress - Considering peculiar facts of this case and nature of settlement, order of High Court is set aside. Appeals allowed. [Paras 3, 5-9] Madhukar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 710 : 2025 INSC 819
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Judicial Consistency - stare decisis - Inconsistent judicial decisions by co-ordinate benches of the High Court in a domestic violence case, leading to quashing of proceedings against the husband while allowing prosecution against in-laws, undermining judicial consistency and public trust. Held: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order quashing a domestic violence case against the husband, emphasizing that co-ordinate benches must adhere to stare decisis or provide reasoned distinctions for departing from prior rulings. The High Court's failure to reference an earlier decision refusing to quash proceedings against co-accused in-laws created an illogical inconsistency, fostering sharp practices like forum shopping and eroding public trust in the judiciary. The impugned order was deemed arbitrary, infracting judicial propriety, and the criminal proceedings against the husband were revived. (Para 11, 13, 17) Renuka v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 593 : 2025 INSC 596
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Penal Code, 1860; Section 306 - Abetment of Suicide - Use of Insulting remarks like 'Impotent' - FIR against husband's in-laws - Held, merely using insulting remarks like "impotent" does not constitute abetment of suicide. Abetment requires direct instigation or persistent cruelty with clear mens rea, which was absent, as the suicide occurred a month after the alleged incident with no subsequent contact. The decision overturned the High Court's refusal to quash the FIR, emphasizing that abusive language alone, without intent to instigate suicide, does not meet the ingredients of Section 107 IPC. (Para 14, 15 & 19) Shenbagavalli v. Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 512 : 2025 INSC 607
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Penal Code, 1860; Section 307 - Attempt to Murder - Quashing Based on Settlement - The mere inclusion of Section 307 IPC in an FIR or charge-sheet does not bar the High Court from quashing criminal proceedings based on a settlement between parties, provided the allegations do not substantiate the offence. Factors such as the nature of the offence, severity of injuries, conduct of the accused, and societal impact are crucial in deciding whether a non-compoundable offence can be quashed on compromise. In this case, the invocation of Section 307 IPC was unjustified due to vague allegations, minor injuries, and the death of the primary accused, with the offence, at most, aligning with Section 326 IPC. Given the settlement, the nature of the injuries, and minimal societal harm, the Court quashed the proceedings, deeming further trial futile and an abuse of process. The appeal was allowed, and the criminal proceedings were quashed. (Para 9 -12) Naushey Ali v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 190 : 2025 INSC 182 : AIR 2025 SC 1035 : (2025) 4 SCC 78
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Penal Code, 1860; Section 387 - Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion - An offence under Section 387 IPC is constituted when a person is put in fear of death or grievous hurt to facilitate extortion, without requiring actual delivery of property. Reversing the High Court's decision to quash summons in a case involving gunpoint threats to extort ₹5 lakh/month, held, unlike Section 383 IPC, Section 387 IPC does not require property transfer. The trial court proceedings were restored, emphasizing that instilling fear is sufficient for prosecution under Section 387 IPC, and an expedited trial was directed. (Para 25, 26) Balaji Traders v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 682 : 2025 INSC 806
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Penal Code, 1860; Section 420, 406 - Quashing of FIR - Civil Dispute vs. Criminal Offence - Non-payment of the sale price constituted a civil dispute and not an offense of criminal breach of trust or cheating. The continuation of the FIR was deemed an abuse of the process of law. A mere failure to pay the sale price does not automatically amount to cheating or criminal breach of trust; fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction must be proven. The dispute was primarily a civil matter concerning unpaid sale consideration, and converting it into a criminal prosecution was an abuse of the process of law. (Para 16 & 17) Ashok Kumar Jain v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 516 : 2025 INSC 614
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - Matrimonial Disputes - Malafide Complaints - Quashing of FIR - High Court's Duty under Section 482 CrPC - Vague Allegations - The Supreme Court quashed proceedings under Sections 498A and 411 IPC against the father-in-law and mother-in-law, while allowing continuation against the husband. Allegations raised after 14 years of marriage, filed three days after the husband initiated divorce proceedings, required scrutiny for malafide intent. Under Section 482 CrPC, High Courts must assess complaints in matrimonial disputes for ulterior motives, particularly when allegations lack specificity. Vague claims of "taunts" by in-laws over trivial matters, being part of ordinary domestic life, are insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings. Courts must exercise caution to prevent vexatious prosecution of family members in such disputes. (Paras 11 - 13) Kamal v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 440 : 2025 INSC 504
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Penal Code, 1860; Section 504 - Intentional insult under Section 504 IPC requires a deliberate intent to provoke a reasonable person to breach public peace or commit another offence. Verbal reprimands by a senior at the workplace regarding official duties do not constitute an offence under Section 504 unless there is clear intent to provoke a breach of peace. Mere abuse, discourtesy, or rudeness does not meet the requirements of Section 504. The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against the Director of NIEPID, Secunderabad, for reprimanding an employee for negligence, holding that such admonitions, aimed at maintaining workplace discipline, do not amount to intentional insult. The High Court's refusal to quash the case was set aside, as the reprimand was an administrative action, not an intentional insult. The Court cautioned against interpretations that could misuse liberty and undermine workplace discipline, noting that failure to address employee misconduct could encourage similar behavior. The criminal proceedings were quashed, as the reprimand lacked intent to provoke and did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 504 IPC. [Paras 21 - 29] B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 192 : 2025 INSC 194 : (2025) 3 SCC 475
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Penal Code, 1860; Sections 354 and 506 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - The allegations did not meet the essential ingredients of the offense, as there was no evidence of criminal force or intent to outrage the complainant's modesty. The record contained only vague assertions without any concrete evidence of physical or mental harassment. The charge of criminal intimidation was not established, as there was no evidence of any threat with the intent to cause alarm or compel to act against will. The High Court should not conduct a mini-trial at this stage but should ensure that the allegations, if taken at face value, constitute an offense. In this case, the allegations were found to be insufficient to proceed against the appellant. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and quashed the criminal proceedings holding that no prima facie case was made out against him under Sections 354 and 506 IPC. The Court reiterated that vague allegations without supporting evidence cannot form the basis for criminal charges. The inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of the legal process. The judgment emphasized the importance of ensuring that criminal proceedings are not used as tools for harassment, especially in cases arising from business disputes. Appeal Allowed. Naresh Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 17 : 2025 INSC 19 : (2025) 2 SCC 604
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Penal Code, 1860; Sections 415, 420 - Quashing of FIR - Allegations of Fraudulent Land Grabbing and Property Sale - Dispute primarily civil in nature, involving co-ownership rights under litigation since 2018. Complainant's suppression of ongoing civil suits while filing FIR in 2020 justified quashing of criminal proceedings. The Court allowed the appeal against the High Court's dismissal of the petition to quash the FIR, holding that the complaint failed to establish the ingredients of cheating under Section 415 IPC. (Paras 12, 13) Jit Vinayak Arolkar v. State of Goa, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 38 : 2025 INSC 31 : 2025 Cri LJ 710 : AIR 2025 SC 361
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Penal Code, 1860 - Section 415 – Cheating - Quashing of FIR – Held, the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, it must be shown that the false representation was of a material fact that induced the victim to act in a way that they wouldn't have otherwise - Since a fire NOC was not necessary for obtaining recognition, the alleged the use of a fake NOC could not have induced the Education Department to grant recognition - the vital link between the false representation and the alleged inducement was missing, meaning the essential ingredients of cheating were not met - Offences under section 468 and 471 IPC were not attracted because there was no dishonest intention to cause wrongful gain or loss, as the issuance of recognition was not dependent on the alleged forged NOC - Appeal allowed. [Paras 15-20] Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 893 : 2025 INSC 1096
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Penal Code, 1960; Section 306 and 420 - Abetment of suicide - Cheating - Quashing of Proceedings – Held, there was no proximate or direct instigation leading to the deceased's suicide. The time gap between the alleged fraudulent acts and the suicide indicated the absence of immediate provocation. FIR quashing under Section 306 IPC upheld, but reinstated under Section 420 IPC. The High Court failed to provide adequate reasoning for quashing the case under Section 420 IPC despite material evidence collected during the investigation. The trial court was directed to proceed with the case under Section 420 IPC, and the accused were given the liberty to seek discharge in accordance with the law. Appeal partly allowed. (Para 15, 18 & 19) R. Shashirekha v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 363 : 2025 INSC 402
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Power to transfer an investigation to the CBI – Held, the power to transfer an investigation to the CBI is an extraordinary measure to be exercised sparingly and only in rare and exceptional circumstances, where there is compelling necessity to ensure fairness, preserve public confidence and protect fundamental rights - Such jurisdiction is invoked when State machinery appears ineffective, biased or complicit or where investigation is tainted by delay, irregularity, suppression of facts, or when complexity/inter-state ramifications necessitate a central agency - Set aside order of High Court and directed to transfer investigation to CBI. [Para 17, 19, 20, 24, 25] Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 740 : 2025 INSC 893
Section 482 Cr.P.C.- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 19 - Question of whether a sanction under the PC Act was granted by a competent authority is a matter of evidence. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order that quashed a sanction order and trial proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, emphasizing that such orders cannot be quashed unless a failure of justice is established due to irregularities in the sanction process. The High Court erred in quashing the proceedings mid-trial without evidence of a failure of justice, especially after the prosecution had examined seven witnesses. (Para 8) State of Punjab v. Hari Kesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 62 : 2025 INSC 50 : AIR 2025 SC 729
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Validity of Sanction – Held, the High Court acted improperly by conducting a mini-trial at the pre-trial stage and quashing the case before the actual case material were brought on record. The issue of conviction prospects and invalid sanction are matters to be determined during the trial. (Para 12 & 14) State v. G. Easwaran, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 356 : 2025 INSC 397
Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 3 - Quashing – Held, the appellants had already availed of the statutory appellate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of PMLA, which remains pending - The PMLA provides a complete and self-contained adjudicatory framework under Sections 5, 8, and 26 - Judicial interference at this stage would prejudge issues within the Tribunal's domain - The ECIR did not name JSW-appellant as accused, and the CBI charge sheet also dropped it from prosecution, indicating absence of a live predicate offence - However, the ED's action was confined to recovery of INR 33.80 crore allegedly arising from the attached bank accounts - When an efficacious statutory remedy under PMLA is being pursued before the Appellate Tribunal, the Supreme Court ordinarily refrains from exercising extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere with ongoing proceedings - Alleged possession or use of attached property constitutes a matter for adjudication under PMLA's internal mechanism, not for pre-emptive quashing - The Court declined to quash proceedings, observing that the dispute regarding the characterization of attached funds as “proceeds of crime” must first be adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal - Appeals dismissed. [Relied on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Paras 21, 24, 33-40] JSW Steel Limited v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 977 : 2025 INSC 1194
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Power of High Courts to quash complaints under Section 12(1) or orders under Sections 18 to 23 using inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) - Held, High Courts can exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) to quash proceedings under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005, or orders under Sections 18 to 23, to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. The notion that Section 482 CrPC is inapplicable due to the predominantly civil nature of DV Act proceedings is incorrect. However, High Courts must exercise caution and restraint, intervening only in cases of patent illegality or abuse of process, given the DV Act's purpose as welfare legislation to protect women from domestic violence. A cautious approach is recommended to avoid undermining the Act's objectives. The civil nature of DV Act proceedings does not preclude the application of Section 482 CrPC. (Paras 37, 39) Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 599 : AIR 2025 SC 2598 : 2025 INSC 734
Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing – Held, conducting a mini trial at the stage of quashing proceedings is generally deprecated but in this case, no cognizable offence was made out against accused on the materials presented - The Supreme Court emphasized that brevity in judicial orders is a virtue, but in the present matter, the High Court justified its reasons for quashing - There was absence of any link between accused and the crime and Quashed the same - Upheld order of High Court - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 5-8] State of Telangana v. Jerusalem Mathai, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 961 : 2025 INSC 1173
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of an FIR – Issue - Whether High Court was justified in quashing of an FIR lodged by appellant citing mere counterblast and with the intention of causing wrongful loss to the bank – Held - Court emphasized that the scope of power under section 482 CrPC is limited to cases where FIR or chargesheet does not constitute the ingredients of the alleged offence - a “mini-trial” should not be conducted and evidence produced by accused in their defence cannot be looked into at the initial stage - the task of High court is to determine if a prima facie case is made out against accused - Held that High Court improperly embarked upon an appreciation of evidence and made findings on merits of the case such as absence of mala-fides on the part of the bank and appellant's ill intention, without evidence being taken into account - that determining intention requires evidence - it cannot be said that no prima facie case regarding commission of an offence, as alleged in the FIR, is made out from its perusal - Set aside order passed by High Court and restored the proceedings. Appeal allowed. [Para 5, 9, 15] Abhishek Singh v. Ajay Kumar, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 675 : AIR 2025 SC 3258 : 2025 INSC 807
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Charges - Bank Fraud – One-Time Settlement (OTS) – Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against appellants involving allegations of ₹25.89 lakh bank fraud under Sections 120B, 420, 468, and 471 of IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, following a full settlement of dues with the Bank via OTS of ₹52,79,000. Held, where dispute is purely commercial, fully settled post-offence, and no continuing public interest exists, criminal proceedings may be quashed. High Court's dismissal of quashing petition reversed, parity granted with co-accused whose charges were quashed earlier. Appeals allowed, proceedings quashed. [Para 9] N.S. Gnaneshwaran v. Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 654 : 2025 INSC 787
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Criminal Complaint - Caste Certificate – Held, the High Court committed a grave error by conducting a 'mini-trial' at the stage of considering a petition for quashing a criminal complaint under Section 482 C.r.P.C. - The question of whether the offences under Sections 467, 468, and 471 IPC (Forgery related offences) or Section 420 IPC (Cheating) are made out will depend on the evidence adduced at the trial - At the stage of quashing, it cannot be said that the prosecution should be nipped in the bud - High Court's findings about "legal illiteracy" were conjectural and patently erroneous - Appeal allowed. [Relied on Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 241; Paras 13, 23, 26, 27, 28] Komal Prasad Shakya v. Rajendra Singh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1004
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Foreign Investor - The rule of law has a responsibility to protect the investments of foreign investors, while at the same time ensuring that any person accused of mishandling such funds is really and fully protected by the power of the phrase 'innocent till proven guilty. (Para 13) Hyeoksoo Son v. Moon June Seok, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 420 : 2025 INSC 474
Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of criminal proceedings - Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406, 420, 120B – Breach of contract/Agreement to Sell – Held, the offences of 'cheating' & 'criminal breach of trust' cannot co-exist on same allegations - While the offence of cheating involves criminal intention from inception, and for criminal breach of trust there is lawful entrustment at the beginning, which is later misappropriated - Both theses offences cannot exist simultaneously on same facts, as they are 'antithetical' to each other - The complaint did not allege intentional deception at inception, or misrepresentation, nor were there facts indicating dishonest inducement to part with property. For the offence under Section 406 IPC, the Court found no evidence of entrustment or misappropriation as defined under Section 405 IPC. Offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust were held mutually exclusive, and the facts did not make out either. Initiation of criminal proceedings in such cases, mainly involving a breach of contract, amounts to abuse of process and vexatious litigation - Appeal allowed. [Paras 17, 18-21, 23, 26] Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 950 : 2025 INSC 1151
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Validity of Sanction – Held, the High Court acted improperly by conducting a mini-trial at the pre-trial stage and quashing the case before the actual case material were brought on record. The issue of conviction prospects and invalid sanction are matters to be determined during the trial. (Para 12 & 14) State v. G. Easwaran, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 356 : 2025 INSC 397 : AIR 2025 SC 1848
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Abuse of Process of Law - Repetitive False Allegations - Respondent filing multiple identical FIRs against different individuals - Lack of cooperation with investigation – Where a complainant files multiple, near-identical FIRs alleging serious offenses (including rape and molestation) against numerous individuals across different police stations, and fails to cooperate with the investigation, coupled with lack of other evidence beyond her statement, the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused constitute an abuse of the process of law. In such circumstances, the High Court ought to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (as per new Act, under Section 528 BNSS) to quash the FIR. (Para 5 & 6) Rakesh Walia v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 282
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Abuse of process of law - Supreme Court quashes criminal case against badminton players Lakshya Sen and Chirag Sen over alleged fabrication and falsification of birth records for age-restricted badminton tournaments – Held, the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process instigated by personal hostility and a desire to harass the appellants - Appellants date of birth were consistently recorded in statutory documents, none of which had been challenged, and that multiple authorities, including the Sports Authority of India (SAI) and Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), had previously examined and closed the age-fraud allegations against appellants - Compelling sports persons of national standing to endure a criminal trial without prima facie material would not serve justice - Summoning an accused in a criminal proceeding is a serious matter and should not be undertaken lightly - Set aside order of High Court - Appeals allowed. [Paras 19-23] Chirag Sen v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 747 : 2025 INSC 903
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR and Criminal Proceedings - Supreme Court quashed an FIR and criminal proceedings against appellants under Sections 290, 341, 171F, 34 IPC and Police Act, citing that quashing is appropriate when allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence or disclose a cognizable offence - Held that FIR and chargesheet did not disclose the crucial ingredients for the offences alleged, such as common injury, danger or annoyance to the public, voluntary obstruction, undue influence or acts causing inconvenience on a road specified in the Police Act - Appellants were exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully and that no useful purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution - Bhajan Lal Test was applied - Court should quash those criminal cases where the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by continuation of a criminal prosecution - Quashed FIR and proceedings - Appeal allowed. [Paras 13, 15, 18-20] Manchu Mohan Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 757 : 2025 INSC 916
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR — Criminal proceedings under Ss. 420 & 468 IPC — Auction sale of secured asset previously acquired by State Housing Board — Alleged suppression of acquisition by bank officials — Held, Appellant, an Assistant Manager at time of 2012 auction, not "authorised officer" under Rule 2(a) — No direct involvement in initiation, conduct, or issuance of sale certificate (issued by predecessor) — Appellant assumed Manager role only in 2014 — No evidence of personal complicity or bad faith; civil dispute wrongly criminalised — Protection under S. 32 SARFAESI (good faith actions) applicable — Continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process and miscarriage of justice — FIR and proceedings quashed. Sivakumar v. Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 478 : 2025 INSC 558
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Freedom of Speech and Expression - Imposition of Costs – Petition for quashing an FIR registered under Sections 295A, 153A, and 509 of the IPC, 1860, and Section 66E of the IT Act, 2000, alleging that the petitioners' Twitter broadcast disrespected a Jain saint and promoted religious enmity. The High Court quashed the FIR, holding that no offence was made out, but imposed costs of Rs. 10 lakhs each on the petitioners, citing their alleged intent to gain publicity by mocking a religious figure. The petitioners challenged the imposition of costs before the Supreme Court. Held, having found no offence and upheld the petitioners' right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to impose costs. The High Court's remarks comparing the petitioners' contributions to those of the Jain saint and accusing them of seeking publicity were irrelevant and beyond the scope of a quashing petition. Courts must refrain from moral policing and adhere to the principle that costs follow the event. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the imposition of costs, while leaving the High Court's order quashing the FIR undisturbed. Tehseen Poonawalla v. State of Haryana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 483
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR – Held, High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited and does not extend to appreciating evidence or conducting a mini-trial - It may intervene to prevent abuse of process or where prima facie no offence is made out - Quashing is justified, including mala fide prosecution and cases where allegations disclose no offence - The instant case falls within these categories, as multiple FIRs appear to be maliciously instituted due to an underlying civil dispute over land and money repayment. The proceedings are quashed as an abuse of process of court, mala fide and amounting to harassment - Appeal allowed. [Paras 11, 12-16, 20] Anukul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 948 : 2025 INSC 1153
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR – Held, second quashing petition on grounds available earlier not maintainable - Principle of constructive res judicata applies to quashing petition under section 482 CrPC - The failure to raise a pertinent ground/plea which was tangibly available at the time of adjudication of the first quashing petition cannot grant a right to file a subsequent quashing petition as it would amount to seeking review on pre-existing material - There is no straight jacket formula that a second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC is not maintainable, but its maintainability depends on the facts and circumstances of each case - However, the onus to show a change in circumstances warranting entertainment of a subsequent quashing petition is on the person filing it - If successive quashing petitions are allowed then that would enable abuse of process - Set aside order passed by High Court allowing second quashing petition and restored complaint - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 11-13] M.C. Ravikumar v. D.S. Velmurugan, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 737 : 2025 INSC 888
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Section 498A of IPC, finding allegation to be 'common place, banal and vague” and “without any specific instances mentioned” having been filed one year after the couple's admitted separation - Set aside order of High Court and quashed FIR and ended marriage by using its powers under Article 142. [Paras 13-16] A v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 773 : 2025 INSC 926
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (Rules of 1999) - Appellant filed petition for quashing criminal proceedings under section 120B IPC read with section 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (allegation of raising commercial building in a prohibited zone under the guise of 'internal renovation', upon obtaining permit from municipal officials in conspiracy and by paying bribe) - Trial Court directed framing of charges against appellant-accused and officials of Corporation - High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against appellant. Held- that appellant-accused attempted to legitimise his fraudulent criminal actions by seeking an order for regularization of the patently illegal construction - the appellant-accused and officials of Municipal Corporation were acting hands in glove right from beginning - Commercial structure was not permissible as it fell within a prohibited zone - necessary ingredients of the offence alleged are clearly established from allegations set out in the prosecution's case. Noted - that officials of Municipal Corporation have not challenged criminal proceedings which acts as prima facie validity of allegations - Directed concerned authorities to take suitable action against illegal construction raised by appellant. Upheld judgment passed by High Court. Appeal dismissed. [Para 13, 15-17] G. Mohandas v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 704 : 2025 INSC 854
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Preliminary Stage of Investigation - There is no absolute rule that the High Court cannot interfere in a Section 482 CrPC petition if the investigation is at a primary stage. Kulandaisamy v. State represented by its Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 357
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 – Held, there was no evidence, particularly no forensic evidence, to support the allegation of rape committed when the prosecutrix was a minor - Promise to marriage and subsequent relationship based on consent won't amount to rape - Allegation of rape under the POCSO Act was made more than 3 years after the alleged incident - A promise to marry followed by a consensual physical relationship does not amount to rape - Supreme Court quashed FIR against appellant citing it as abuse of the process of law - Set aside High Court's order - Appeal allowed. Kunal Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 765
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Scope of High Court's power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to Quash FIR/Criminal Proceedings - The power to quash an FIR or criminal proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, in exceptional and rarest of rare cases. At the stage of quashing, the Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint - The Court has only to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence - If a cognizable offence is disclosed, the Court should not thwart the investigation – Held, the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings primarily on the ground that the two specific incidents of harassment/dowry demand mentioned in the subsequent FIR were absent from the earlier complaints and were thus an "afterthought" or a "counterblast" - This approach amounts to conducting a mini-trial, which is prohibited under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - A First Information Report (FIR) is not an encyclopaedia and is not required to disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported - Appeal allowed. [Relied on State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) 19 SCC 401; Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh and Others, (2023) 18 SCC 399; Paras 17, 18, 20-27] Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya), 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1080 : 2025 INSC 1287
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Simultaneous Civil and Criminal proceedings - Whether civil and criminal proceedings both can be maintained on the very same set of allegations against the same person – Held, there is no bar to simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings - If the element of criminality is there, a civil case can co-exist with a criminal case on the same facts - Fact that a civil remedy has already been availed of by a complainant, ipso facto, is not sufficient ground to quash an FIR - But In absence of element of criminality, if both civil and criminal cases are allowed to continue, it will definitely amount to abuse of process of Court - Criminal case to be quashed when civil case pending on same issue and criminality element is absent - Prima facie elements of above offences not present in FIR - Set aside order of High Court and Quashed FIR - Appeal allowed. [Para 42] S.N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 758 : 2025 INSC 917
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Supreme Court quashed criminal case against petitioner, citing his age and an unconditional apology he made before the Court - FIR was registered for 'objectionable comments' made at Jaipur Literary Conference - Supreme Court condemned Petitioner's statements as 'very objectionable' and found them unbecoming of a person of his status, it noted that the criminal cases had been pending for about 12 years and that petitioner is now 90 years old - Supreme Court's decision to quash the complaints was based 'only by reason of the apology offered' - Petition Allowed. [Para 5] Ashis Nandy v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 896
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Supreme Court questioned the timing and motive behind FIR, stating it appeared to be a retaliatory counterblast after losing in foreign courts - Conduct of respondent was found questionable and inconsistent with the claim of social integration in Austria - Noted that period of alleged cruelty extended beyond the marriage duration, creating further doubt – Held, for quashing FIRs under Section 482 CrPC, Court should look for prima facie disclosure of offence - FIR was quashed as retaliatory after divorce notice- Supreme Court cautioned High Courts against mechanically dismissing quashing petitions based solely on the contents of FIR, stressing that the surrounding context and circumstances of its filing must also take into account whether the FIR was a result of a counterblast or a retaliatory measure filed with an oblique motive just to harass the litigant - Appeal allowed. [Paras 9-14] Nitin Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 923 : 2025 INSC 1128
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of FIR - Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 - Supreme Court Quashes FIR For Possession of Reindeer Horn - Notes reindeer not a protected species - Invokes Article 142 - The Supreme Court noted it was not in dispute that the reindeer is not a species covered under the category of a protected or prohibited animal as per the schedule of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 – Held, recovered article did not violate any statute and the petitioner's 14 day incarceration, Supreme Court found that allowing further prosecution would amount to gross abuse of the process of the Court - There is an imminent need to require jurisdictional agencies at international airports to sensitize their officers in the prevailing laws before taking drastic steps like detention and arrest of international travellers - Such steps should not be taken in haste and must be preceded by appropriate legal opinion and pragmatic approach - Supreme Court referred the current case and a recent incident at Jaipur International Airport involving the arbitrary seizure of a lawfully owned Rolex watch - Such ill-advised actions tend to bring disrepute to the country and breach human rights guarantees. [Paras 15-19] Rocky Abraham v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1020
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Railways Act, 1989; Section 143 – Unauthorised Procurement and Sale of Railway Tickets – Applicability to Online Ticket Sales – Held, Section 143 prohibits unauthorised procurement and sale of railway tickets, regardless of whether conducted online or offline. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, which had quashed proceedings by limiting Section 143 to offline ticket sales. The Court rejected this narrow interpretation, holding that statutory provisions should be interpreted broadly to include technological advancements, such as e-tickets, even if not contemplated at the time of enactment, provided the language permits such application. The respondent's use of hundreds of fake IRCTC user IDs to procure and sell tickets without authorisation violated Section 143. Appeal allowed, proceedings restored. (Para 21, 26, 28, 36) Inspector, Railway Protection Force v. Mathew K. Cherian, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 42 : 2025 INSC 51 : (2025) 4 SCC 245
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Rape - False Promise of Marriage - Consensual Relationship - Quashing of FIR - Where a complainant, a highly qualified major woman, alleges rape based on a false promise of marriage after a 16-year long consensual relationship, the allegations are deemed unreliable due to material contradictions and prolonged silence. The deletion of Section 313 IPC (causing miscarriage) by the Investigation Officer and the lack of evidence against other co-accused further weaken the complainant's case. The prolonged period of consensual sexual relations, the complainant's independent life and travel to meet the accused, and her portrayal of herself as the accused's wife indicate a live-in relationship gone sour, not rape. Applying the principles of Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 921; Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 904; Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675 and Shivashankar v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 18 SCC 204 the court held that the physical relationship must be directly traceable to the false promise, and prolonged consensual relations negate the claim of vitiated consent. Mere breach of promise does not equate to a false promise, and the accused's mala fide intent must be established. The FIR and subsequent proceedings are quashed as an abuse of process. (Para 19, 26, 29, 30, 34, 37 & 39) Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 279 : 2025 INSC 308 : (2025) 4 SCC 197
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Rape - False Promise of Marriage - Manipulative Conduct - Vindictive Motive - Abuse of Process - Quashing of FIR - Held, complainant's chats disclosed a pattern of filing false complaints, aggressive sexual behavior, and intent to exploit the accused through threats of criminal action to coerce marriage. Allegations under the SC/ST Act were found baseless and introduced to harass the accused. FIR contained fabricated and malicious allegations, and continuing the criminal proceedings constituted an abuse of process. The rape case, based on allegations of forcible sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage, was quashed, as the complainant's claims were deemed manipulative and vindictive. Appeal allowed, FIR quashed. (Paras 26 - 30) Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 645 : AIR 2025 SC 2695 : 2025 INSC 790
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) - Essential ingredients of - "within public view" - The Appellant was accused of abusing a Revenue Inspector by using his caste name in a government office, leading to charges under Sections 294(b) and 353 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act. The High Court dismissed the Appellant's petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. Whether the incident occurred in a place "within public view" as required under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, and whether the High Court erred in not quashing the proceedings. Held, For an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, the act of insult or abuse must occur in a place "within public view." A place "within public view" refers to a location where members of the public can witness or hear the incident, even if it is a private place. The incident occurred within the confines of the Revenue Inspector's office, and not in a place "within public view." Therefore, the essential ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act were not satisfied. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings, ruling that the High Court failed to consider this crucial aspect. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of proving that an offence under the SC-ST Act occurred in a place "within public view." Since the incident took place in a private office without public witnesses, the charges under the SC-ST Act were not sustainable, and the proceedings were quashed. Karuppudayar v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 133 : 2025 INSC 132 : AIR 2025 SC 705
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - The High Court wrongly concluded the poem disturbed social harmony without evidence, relying solely on its “tenor” and social media responses. No absolute bar exists against quashing an FIR at a nascent stage if no offence is prima facie made out. The High Court failed to prevent an abuse of process. (Para 35 & 37) Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362 : 2025 INSC 410
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - The High Court wrongly concluded the poem disturbed social harmony without evidence, relying solely on its “tenor” and social media responses. No absolute bar exists against quashing an FIR at a nascent stage if no offence is prima facie made out. The High Court failed to prevent an abuse of process. (Para 35 & 37) Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362 : 2025 INSC 410 : AIR 2025 SC (Crl.) 679
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986; Sections 2 and 3 - Quashing of FIR - Abuse of Process - Supreme Court quashed FIRs against Director of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Technology and Science (SHUATS) under the Act, deeming them an abuse of law. No prima facie case established, as investigation materials relied on conjectures and surmises. Gang-chart and records lacked competent authorities' satisfaction for action under the Act. High Court's orders refusing to quash proceedings and non-bailable warrants set aside. Allegations of appellant leading an organized gang in economic offences via fraud, deceit, and document tampering held insufficient. Continuation of proceedings would cause undue harassment and abuse of process. Observations limited to FIR in question, not affecting other pending prosecutions. (Para 61, 65, 66) Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 615 : 2025 INSC 767
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Whether the summoning order issued by the trial court, without assigning reasons, is valid in light of the legal requirement for magistrates to apply their mind before issuing process in criminal cases. The appellants were accused of manufacturing and distributing drugs not of standard quality under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. A complaint was filed by the Drugs Inspector alleging that a drug sample failed the dissolution test. The trial court issued a summoning order without providing reasons. The appellants filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the proceedings, which was dismissed by the High Court. Held, the issuance of process in criminal cases is a serious matter, and magistrates must apply their mind to the facts and law before summoning accused persons. The summoning order in this case was a non-speaking order, lacking any reasons, and thus violated the principles laid down in precedents such as Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 and Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609. The Court reiterated that the magistrate must scrutinize the evidence and allegations before issuing process, and failure to do so renders the order unsustainable. The impugned judgment of the High Court and the summoning order of the trial court are quashed. All proceedings arising from the summoning order are set aside. The judgment reaffirms the necessity for magistrates to provide reasoned orders when issuing process in criminal cases, ensuring that the accused are not subjected to unwarranted legal proceedings without proper judicial scrutiny. The appeal is allowed. JM Laboratories v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 128
Section 482 - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Sections 18 and 27 - Manufacture of substandard 'Fena' tablets, seized during a raid on 15.06.2010 – Held, the appellant, who resigned as manufacturing chemist on 15.12.2008 and as director on 01.06.2009, was not liable for the company's actions post-resignation. Form 32, filed with the Registrar of Companies, confirmed the appellant's disassociation from the company prior to the raid. The Court rejected the contention that the appellant's name on the manufacturing license (valid 2006- 2011) implied ongoing liability, as no evidence established his association with Elmac after 01.06.2009. The High Court's impugned order was set aside, and the appellant's application under Section 482 of CrPC was allowed, quashing the FIR and charges under Sections 18 and 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, read with the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. (Para 11, 12) Yashpal Chail v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 247
Section 498A IPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent powers - Quashing of FIR - Cruelty- Generic allegations - Limitation period for cognizance - The Supreme Court quashed FIR and chargesheet filed in dowry harassment case under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC, citing generic and ambiguous nature of allegations - Unreliable of complainant and absence of specifics of time, date or place and incriminating material produced by Complainant to prove ingredients of “cruelty” under Section 498A, IPC – Held, judicial decision cannot be blurred to the actual facts and circumstances of the case - No prima facie case is made out against appellant and his family - Also stressed that distant relatives cannot be prosecuted based on omnibus allegations alone - Supreme Court expressed disappointment on the fact that complainant being the officer of State has initiated criminal machinery in such a manner - Set aside order passed by High Court and quash FIR- Appeals allowed. [Paras 11-13] Ghanshyam Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 676 : 2025 INSC 803 : AIR 2025 SC 3236
Section 498A IPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Omnibus allegations and lack of specifics – Held, mere omnibus statements without particulars cannot form the basis for prosecution under Section 498A - No direct allegations regarding offences under Section 377 and 506 IPC were made against the present appellants; rather such allegations were confined solely to the complainant's husband - Continuation of these proceedings for these offences against the appellants was held to be an abuse of process of law - Where the FIR or complaint, even if taken at face value, does not prima facie constitute any offence, quashing is permissible - Vague and general allegations, without specific overt acts, do not justify the continuation of criminal proceedings - Quashed criminal proceedings - Appeal allowed. [Paras 6, 9-13] Sanjay D. Jain v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 960 : 2025 INSC 1168
Section 528 BNSS – Held, no prosecution against a sitting or former Member of Parliament (MP) or Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) shall be withdrawn without the leave of the High Court - The Public Prosecutor must file the application, which should disclose all reasons that weighed with them to put forward the application, along with the records of the case, before the High Court for permission to withdraw the prosecution - The High Court must exercise its judicial mind and give a reasoned order, granting or denying such permission - The function of the Court in granting consent is a judicial one, described as supervisory in nature, to ensure the Public Prosecutor's executive function has not been improperly exercised - The Trial Court had rightly observed that permission to withdraw could not be granted because the State had not sought the High Court's permission as mandated by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay case - The State had failed to seek permission even after being granted 30 day's time by the Trial Court - Appeals dismissed. [Relied on Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, (2021) 20 SCC 599; Paras 4-10] Bal Kumar Patel @ Raj Kumar v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1164 : 2025 INSC 1378
Section 528 BNSS - Inherent Power of High Court - Review/Recall of Own Order - Held that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS [Section 482 CrPC] cannot be invoked to review or recall its own judgment or order on merits, as the power of review is specifically barred under Section 403 BNSS [Section 362 CrPC], except for the purpose of correcting clerical or arithmetical errors - The inherent power cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code - Held that High Court grievously erred in recalling/reviewing its reasoned order dated January 16, 2025, on the ground of an "inadvertent clerical mistake" when the subsequent application was, in effect, a prayer for review of the earlier order by acceding to the initial prayer for transfer of investigation, which the earlier order had consciously declined - The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's orders dated January 24, 2025 (recalling the earlier order) and February 4, 2025 (transferring investigation to CBI), as they were based on an erroneous premise of a clerical mistake and amounted to an impermissible review of a reasoned order passed under the inherent jurisdiction - Appeal allowed. [Relied on Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and Another (1990) 2 SCC 437; Para 18, 20, 26-31] State of Rajasthan v. Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 984 : 2025 INSC 1205
Section 528 BNSS - Quashing of FIR / Chargesheet - Jurisdiction of High Court – Held, Article 226 cannot be invoked to quash chargesheet if cognizance has been taken, remedy is available under Section 528 - FIRs or chargesheets may be quashed under Article 226 before cognizance is taken but once cognizance is taken, the remedy lies under Section 528 BNSS, to challenge both FIR/Chargesheet and even the cognizance order - The High Court did have the jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to consider the petitioner's grievance for quashing the FIR, chargesheet and any cognizance order - High Court misunderstood the ruling in Neeta Singh v State of U.P. 2024 - Order of High Court was set aside. [Paras 7-10] Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 875
Section 528 BNSS - Quashing of FIR- Constitution of India - Article 142 - Inherent Power to Quash- The Supreme Court, exercising power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, quashed an FIR in its entirety, including the offence of Dacoity which the High Court had sustained despite an amicable settlement - Held that once the High Court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR for the other offences there was no justification to sustain the FIR for the dacoity charge, as the factual matrix for all offences was inseparable and arose from a single transaction- Appeal allowed. [Paras 9 - 15] Prashant Prakash Ratnaparki v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1114 : 2025 INSC 1323
Section 528 of BNSS - Consensual Relationship vs. Rape – Held, mere break-up of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in the initiation of criminal proceedings - What was a consensual relationship at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marriage - Misuse of the criminal justice machinery to convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape is a matter of profound concern and calls for condemnation - The case is a classic instance of a consensual relationship having subsequently turned acrimonious - High Court's refusal to quash the proceedings under Section 528 of BNSS was unsustainable - The continuation of the prosecution would be an abuse of the court machinery - The FIR and Charge-sheet were quashed - Appeal allowed. [Relied on Mahesh Damu Khare vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 11 SCC 398; Paras 28-32, 34, 40] Samadhan v. State of Maharasthra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1137 : 2025 INSC 1351
Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) SC-ST Act - Essential ingredients of - "within public view" - The Appellant was accused of abusing a Revenue Inspector by using his caste name in a government office, leading to charges under Sections 294(b) and 353 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act. The High Court dismissed the Appellant's petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. Whether the incident occurred in a place "within public view" as required under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, and whether the High Court erred in not quashing the proceedings. Held, For an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, the act of insult or abuse must occur in a place "within public view." A place "within public view" refers to a location where members of the public can witness or hear the incident, even if it is a private place. The incident occurred within the confines of the Revenue Inspector's office, and not in a place "within public view." Therefore, the essential ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act were not satisfied. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings, ruling that the High Court failed to consider this crucial aspect. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of proving that an offence under the SC-ST Act occurred in a place "within public view." Since the incident took place in a private office without public witnesses, the charges under the SC-ST Act were not sustainable, and the proceedings were quashed. Karuppudayar v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 133 : 2025 INSC 132 : AIR 2025 SC 705
Sections 323, 294, 500, 504, and 506 IPC - The appellant, a police officer, challenged the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class directing the registration of an FIR against him under Sections 323, 294, 500, 504, and 506 of the Penal Code (IPC) based on a complaint filed by a practicing advocate. The High Court rejected the appellant's application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. affirming the Magistrate's order. Whether the Magistrate mechanically ordered police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. without proper application of mind. The scope and prerequisites for invoking Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the judicial discretion of the Magistrate. Held, Magistrates must apply their minds before directing police investigation. The order should not be mechanical, and the Magistrate must ensure that the complaint discloses cognizable offences. The Court highlighted the need for affidavits and prior applications to the police before invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Magistrate. The Court held that no cognizable offence was made out, and the continuation of the investigation would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The appeal was allowed, and the investigation was quashed. Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 139 : 2025 INSC 139 : AIR 2025 SC 970
Sections 354 and 506 IPC - Quashing of criminal proceedings - The allegations did not meet the essential ingredients of the offense, as there was no evidence of criminal force or intent to outrage the complainant's modesty. The record contained only vague assertions without any concrete evidence of physical or mental harassment. The charge of criminal intimidation was not established, as there was no evidence of any threat with the intent to cause alarm or compel to act against will. The High Court should not conduct a mini-trial at this stage but should ensure that the allegations, if taken at face value, constitute an offense. In this case, the allegations were found to be insufficient to proceed against the appellant. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and quashed the criminal proceedings holding that no prima facie case was made out against him under Sections 354 and 506 IPC. The Court reiterated that vague allegations without supporting evidence cannot form the basis for criminal charges. The inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of the legal process. The judgment emphasized the importance of ensuring that criminal proceedings are not used as tools for harassment, especially in cases arising from business disputes. Appeal Allowed. Naresh Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 17 : 2025 INSC 19 : AIR 2025 SC 582 : (2025) 2 SCC 604
Sections 362, 340 Cr.P.C. - Power to review / Recall - Whether a review or recall of an order passed in a criminal proceeding initiated under Section 340 CrPC is permissible or not – Held, Section 362 CrPC explicitly prohibits a criminal court from altering or reviewing its judgment once it has been signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors - Prohibition is 'complete' and prevents a criminal court from reviewing its own judgment - Proceedings under Section 340 CrPC are criminal in nature, as they can lead to a criminal trial and punishment - They are governed by CrPC and a review application under CPC is not maintainable - A Court become functus officio the very moment a judgment or an order is signed, the bar of Section 362 CrPC becomes applicable, this despite the powers provided under Section 482 CrPC which, this veil cannot allow the Courts to step beyond or circumvent an explicit bar - Set aside order of High Court - Appeal allowed. [Paras 28-34, 39-41] Vikram Bakshi v. R.P. Khosla, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 844 : 2025 INSC 1020
Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 507 IPC - Rape on promise of marriage - Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), Section 528 - Held that a relationship that continued for three years and involved multiple physical acts, with the woman being well-educated, married (with the marriage still subsisting), and voluntarily meeting the man on each occasion, cannot be retrospectively branded as rape merely because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage - The physical intimacy that occurred during the course of a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as instances of the offence of rape merely because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage. [Relied on Rajnish Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 4 SCC 197] Samadhan v. State of Maharasthra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1137 : 2025 INSC 1351
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC - Madhya Pradesh Griha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972; Section 83 - The appellant, an official of the Madhya Pradesh State Housing Board, was implicated in a criminal case involving allegations of forgery and cheating related to the transfer of property. The appellant sought quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which was refused by the High Court. Whether the appellant, as a public servant, was protected under Section 83 of the Madhya Pradesh Griha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972, akin to Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., which requires prior sanction for prosecution of public servants for acts done in their official capacity. Whether the allegations against the appellant, including conspiracy and forgery, were substantiated by evidence. Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed in light of the civil nature of the dispute and the absence of mens rea on the part of the appellant. Held, offences in the chargesheet cannot be based on bald assertions of connivance. There must be some substance to it. The appellant's actions were in furtherance of his official duties, and there was no evidence to suggest that he acted with any dishonest intent or knowledge of the alleged forgery. The allegations of conspiracy and forgery were not substantiated by the chargesheet or witness statements, and no prima facie case was made out against the appellant. The case was essentially civil in nature, and the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the process of law. The High Court erred in refusing to quash the FIR, as the ingredients of the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 120-B IPC were not met. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside. All proceedings arising from the FIR and subsequent chargesheet were quashed. Dinesh Kumar Mathur v. State of M.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 20 : 2025 INSC 16 : AIR 2025 SC (Crl.) 617