Legal Reference Library

The Patna High Court, in the case of Dr. Syed Mohhammad Azfar vs The State Of Bihar & Anr, shed light on the wide-ranging powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and noted that even those complaints of which the Magistrate has taken cognizance of, but are of a private and vexatious nature, can be quashed by the High Court. In this case, an appeal had been filed for the quashing of order of cognizance by the Magistrate and issuance of process under a Complaint Case alleging offences under Sections 323 and 342 of the IPC. It was contended that the complaint was filed on malicious and vexatious grounds. Justice Nilu Agarwal, after examining the material placed on record and balancing rival contentions, held that even though an offence is disclosed in the complaint, the same is held to be a vexatious petition filed to harass and humiliate the accused.

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Shri. Abhay Shantilal Jain, vs The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station, Jamner Tal. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon, has held that re-payment of loan amount will not have any adverse effect on a criminal prosecution. The bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice KK Sonawane was hearing an application filed under Section 482 of CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR registered against members of a cooperative credit society. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/mere-repayment-money-cant-ground-quashing-cheating-case-bombay-hc/

The Madhya Pradesh in NAVAL KISHORE GATTANI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH held that while exercising jurisdiction of section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code this court cannot indulge in a “roving inquiry” to ascertain the two conflicting versions concerned to any incident whether it is correct or not. Furthermore the court held it is the sole domain of the trial court to enquire and deduce to the truth of two conflicting versions relating to the incident one given by the petitioner and the other by the prosecution.