Add Tribune As Your Trusted Source
TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My Money
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill ViewBenchmark
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Power to quash criminal proceedings should be used very sparingly: Supreme Court

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

New Delhi, February 19

Advertisement

The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases, the Supreme Court has said.

Advertisement

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and S Ravindra Bhat made the observation while quashing a case of forgery and cheating against three individuals in a property dispute.

“This court has cautioned that power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; it has specified certain category of cases wherein such power can be exercised for quashing proceedings,” the bench said.

The apex court said that one of the categories where this power can be used is where a criminal proceeding is manifestly mala fide or maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

Advertisement

The top court said that in the present case, the complaint has been filed against the accused with an ulterior motive of harassing the appellants.

The apex court said that the magistrate while passing the order under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC has totally failed to consider the law laid down by the highest court.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement