How Can You Get Your FIR

Quashed

In this blog post, Pravesh Naveriya from RDVV, Jabalpur, talks about the
process to get your FIR quashed.

A law is made for the benefit of the people. A law is made to protect people and
especially the ones which have been suppressed by the dominating ones. The
law tries to fill the gap between the dominating and the dominated. The laws
are made keeping in mind the interest of all the people but there is a special
consideration for the weak and suppressed people. There are number of laws
which very clearly indicates that they have been made for the benefit of one or
two specified classes of people. The examples of these are a long list which
includes the harijans, women, minorities etc.
There are people who uses these laws which have been formulated for their
support to blackmail innocent people in order to get some money or
fame. There are a number of examples in which a person uses the law in order
to blackmail or force someone to do something which he is not interested in
doing. For this reason, the lawmakers have made certain laws to protect those
innocent people from the misuse of these laws. The FIR or the First Information
Report which has been lodged by the police after the complainant made a
complaint can be quashed or can be made void if it is lodged illegally.

An FIR can be quashed by the High Court if the court is convinced that the
person is innocent and has been falsely implicated. A High Court can quash the
FIR on the ground that the case is a false case and will ask the police to set the
aggrieved person free if he has been arrested.

Compoundable and Non-Compoundable Cases

There are two types of offences specified in the Indian Penal Code; these are
compoundable and non-compoundable cases. This have been classified on the
basis that whether the parties are free to settle the case among themselves
outside the court or not.

 The offences which can be settled by the parties outside the court are classified
as Compoundable offences.

 The offences which are not allowed to be settled outside the court are known
as Non-Compoundable offences.

 The offences in which the lawmakers thought would be better that the competent
parties settle the case within themselves by giving the victim a particular amount of
compensation or damage for the loss which he has suffered are classified as
compoundable offences.
  There are offences in which there is no amount of money or asset which could
compensate the loss occurred, those offences are not allowed to be compounded or
settled between the parties themselves and the court itself is the only authority who
has the power to deal with the case.

 A compoundable offence can be compounded only and only if both the parties have
given their free consent to the decision and no one can force a person to compound
a particular compoundable offence.

 A person who has been accused of committing any non-compoundable offence and
against whom an FIR has been registered can approach the court and ask the court
to quash the FIR if he has been implicated falsely and illegally and there is evidence
that not even prima facie any offence is made out against him or that there are
glaring irregularities that makes it implausible for him to be convicted.

Inherent Powers of High Court

The Code of Criminal Procedure has under Section 482 explained the inherent
powers of the High Court.

 Section 482 of the code specifies that a High Court has got the power to act in any
manner in order to make the two ends of justice meet.

 Under this section, a High Court can quash an FIR if it thinks that the FIR which has
been lodged is a false one and was done with the sole motive to defame and trouble
the aggrieved person.

 If any person has been implicated and accused of a non-compoundable offence then
he can approach a High Court and file a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian
Constitution read with Section 482 of CrPC.

 The burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove that he FIR has been lodged only for
malicious reasons and to trouble the petitioner.
Article 498-A and Quashing of FIR
 The most common case in which a High Court uses its power is the case of Dowry
Harassment and Section 498-A (domestic violence).

 Some women use this as a tool to pressurize the in-laws or husband and filing of
false cases is rife.

 The aggrieved person can approach a High Court and request the court to quash the
FIR as it has been lodged with the only purpose to defame or trouble him.

 There have been many cases in which an appeal was made to the Supreme Court of
India that a particular offence FIR cannot be quashed or it is not under the jurisdiction
of a High Court to quash it, responding to this the Supreme Court in all the cases has
very clearly specified that Section 482 of the CrPC gives the High Court this power
and it cannot be questioned.

 The High Court can use its inherent powers to quash an FIR of any offence in which
it is satisfied that it was required to do so.

Conclusion
The laws have been made to make sure that no one is suppressing anyone and
if someone is then he shall be punished. But there are a number of
circumstances in which a person uses these laws which are favouring him to
trouble innocent people.

To tackle this the lawmakers have given the High Court a power to quash an
FIR if they are satisfied that it was lodged with the only motive to trouble the
person and there is no need to continue the legal proceedings against that
person.
Supreme Court Elucidate 10 Points for Quashing of F.I.R
under Section 482 of CRPC
[Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1723 of 2017)]

A full bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Hon’ble Mr. Justice AM
Khanwilkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice DY Chandrachud has laid down broad principles from various
precedents in relation to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for quashing of First
Information Reports (FIRs) in the judgment passed in an appeal against a decision of the Gujarat
High Court.

The Gujarat High Court vide its judgment dated November 25, 2016, had dismissed an application
under Section 482 of CrPC filed by the Appellants seeking quashing of FIR registered against them
on June 18, 2016 with the City ‘C’ Division Police Station, District Jamnagar, Gujarat for offences
punishable under Sections 384, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code.

Before, the High Court, the plea for quashing the FIR was advanced on the ground that the
Appellants had amicably settled the dispute with the Complainant, who had also filed an Affidavit to
that effect. On behalf of the prosecution, application for quashing was opposed on two grounds:

1. The Appellants were absconding and warrants had been issued against them under Section 70
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The Appellants had criminal antecedants.

The High Court observed that it had been given “a fair idea” about the modus operandi adopted by
the Appellants for grabbing the land, in the course of which they had opened bogus bank accounts.
The High Court held that the case involves extortion, forgery and conspiracy and all the Appellants
have acted as a team. Hence, in the view of the High Court, it was not in the interest of society at
large to accept the settlement and quash the FIR. The High Court held that the charges are of a
serious nature and the activities of the appellants render them a potential threat to society. On this
ground, the prayer to quash the First Information Report was rejected by the High Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court after discussing various precedents on the subject summarized the
following broad principles in relation to Section 482 for quashing FIRs.
1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new
powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

1. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a
criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender
and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of
compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed
by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to
quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

1. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in

exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends
of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

1. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be
exercised;

1. to secure the ends of justice or

2. to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

2. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the
ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts
and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be
formulated;

3. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute
has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the
offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as
murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of
the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but
have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is
founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious
offences;
 4. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an
overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in
so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

5. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile,
partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate
situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

6. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the
compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the
continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

7. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above.
Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have
implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The
High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an
activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act
complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.

The Apex Court dismissed the appeal holding that the High Court was justified in declining to
entertain the Application for quashing FIR in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

In view of the above expositions, it has been clearly held by the Apex Court that the High Court
while exercising its power under Section 482 and dealing with a plea that the dispute has been
settled, the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the Offence. Further, it has been
observed heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape
and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have
settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact
upon society.
Procedure To Lodge FIR And Remedy
Against False FIR
admin | January 21, 2018

Introduction
The basic purpose of filing a FIR is to set criminal law into motion and not to
state all the minute details therein. A First Information Report is the initial step
in a criminal case recorded by the police and contains the basic knowledge of
the crime committed, place of commission, time of commission, who was the
victim, etc. The definition for the First Information Report has been provided in
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 by the virtue of Sec. 154, which lays
down that:
first-information-report

“Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given

orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by
him or under his direction, and be read Over to the informant; and every such
information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall
be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a
book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may
prescribe in this behalf”.

Who Can Lodge an FIR?

FIRs can be registered by a victim, a witness or someone else with knowledge
of the crime.As per the laws laid down u/s 154 of the Cr.P.C., the complainant
can give information about the offence either in written or orally. In regard to
who can file an FIR,

“Section 154 does not require that the Report must be given by a person who
has personal knowledge of the incident reported. The section speaks of
information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence given to an
officer in charge of a police station”.

Cognizable Offences
Cognizable Offences have been defined u/s 2(c) of the C.P.C.1898. This is the
class of offences in which the police has the power to make an arrest without a
warrant. These offences are serious in nature, and thus the aim is to prevent the
culprit or accused of harming others. Hence, the police have been given
authority to make an arrest without a warrant so that precious time involved in
all the legal procedures of issuing a warrant is saved. What offences fall under
the category of cognizable offences has been specified in the first schedule of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Though there is no pre-defined pattern of
classification of offences into cognizable and non-cognizable offences but on a
study, it can be seen that offences having a punishment of more than three years
are classified as cognizable offences and those who have punishment for less
than three years are referred to as non-cognizable offences.

As per Sec. 156(1), the police has the authority to investigate a case involving a
cognizable offence without prior permission of the Magistrate. Sec. 156(1) lays
down that:
Section 156 (2) further reads,

“No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called
in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not
empowered under this section to investigate.”

The term ‘cognizance’ as such has not been defined in the Code. The word as
such has no esoteric or mystic significance in Criminal Law or procedure. In
reference to Courts or judicial process, it simply means when the Court ‘takes
notice judicially.’

Difference between an FIR & Private Complaint

The main point of difference between a first information report and a private
complaint is that an FIR relates a cognizable offence whereas a police complaint
can be filed for both non-cognizable and cognizable class of offences. Though
the basic meaning of both is a complaint but they are different in terms of
offences they deal with, punishments, legal consequences, evidentiary value,
etc. further, a complaint is to be given to a magistrate either by the way of
spoken words or in writing, whereas the first information report is lodged at the
police station nearby the place of commission of crime.

According to s. 2(d) Cr.P.C., a complaint is the allegation of fact which

constitute a complaint. Further, a complainant and a first informant need not be
the same person.Pakistani criminal laws do not provide any strict form for a
complaint, and thus an affidavit or a petition may also amount to a complaint in
the court of law.The general rule is that any person having knowledge of the
commission of an offence can file a complaint, even though the concerned
person is not personally interested or affected by the offence, except in cases of
offences relating to marriage, defamation and offences mentioned in ss. 195 to
197 Cr.P.C When an informant approaches the police authorities relating the
information about the commission of a cognizable offence it is called filing a
complaint. This ‘first information’ in the form of a complaint when registered as
prayed for by the informant u/s. 154 Cr.P.C., it constitutes ‘FIR’ which should
on the face of it and in the light of subsequent events disclose the information
within the meaning of this section.

A Magistrate can take cognizance of a complaint u/s 190 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1898. When a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence
(upon receipt of a complaint or otherwise), he examines the complaint in
accordance with Section 200 by examining the facts and the witnesses. If he
finds that the complaint is with merits, the case is deemed committed for trial
and the magistrate issues the process under Section 204. If the offence is
exclusively triable by Court of Session, the Magistrate commits the case to
Court of Session under Section 209.

As per Sec. 190, the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of an offence

in three ways provided therein. However, if he chooses to take cognizance on
the basis of a complaint then to investigate and decide upon the matter further,
he is bound to follow the provisions laid down by Sec. 200 to Sec. 203 of the
Cr.P.C. and if the case demands, also under Sec. 204.

Remedies
If the concerned officer in charge refuses to register a first information report
about commission of a cognizable offence within his territorial jurisdiction
under Sec. 154(3), the informant can approach court of justice of peace under
section 22-a of crpc
Evidenciary Value
The police can make three different kinds of statements. The first kind of
statement is one which can be recorded as an FIR, the second kind of statement
is one which can be recorded by the police during the investigation, and third
kind of statement is any kind of statement which would not fall under any of the
two categories mentioned above.
The first information report is not considered a substantive piece of evidence in
the court of law because it is not given in a trial, given in the absence of oath,
and is not scrutinized by cross-examination.But the relative importance of a first
information report is far greater than any other statement recorded by police
during the course of investigation.

“The FIR is a kind of evidence whose contradictory value is only for the person
who has lodged the FIR (the informant) and it cannot be used to contradict the
statement made by any other person, witness”.

Death of Informant
If the informant deceases, the first information report can be unquestionably
used as a substantive evidence. A pre-requisite condition must be fulfilled
before F.I.R. is taken as a substantive piece of evidence, i.e.. the death of the
informant must have nexus with the F.I.R. his dying declaration recorded

False F.I.R.
Irrespective of country, region or society, a false complaint is a phenomenon
that cannot be ignored. These false F.I.R. can be lodged by an informant or by
police to implicate a person in a case. Cases regarding the latter mode of
registrations of a false F.I.R. are found more the earlier one. Under Indian
criminal law, lodging a false F.I.R. against someone is a punishable offence u/s
182 and u/s 211 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
Remedy
If a person gets to know that an F.I.R. has been registered against him and he
knows that it is false and baseless, as a precaution he has the freedom to apply
for interim bail u/s498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The aggrieved
or accused person can file a complaint about the offence of defamation in the
Court. Further, a person against whom such false complaint has been filed can
file a petition u/s 561-a of the Cr.P.C. praying to quash the F.I.R. on the ground
that (a) acts” and “omission” attributed towards the accused person in the FIR
does not constitute any offence; or (b) No incidence of offence as alleged in the
FIR has happened; or (c) the FIR contains “bare allegLation” without attributing
whatsoever “acts or omission” on the part of the accused person, towards the
commission of the offences.
Quashing of F.I.R
The Pakist legal system has empowered the High Courts with power to quash
criminal proceedings in a case if it is satisfied that such quashing is necessary to
meet the ends of justice and to prevent misuse of power, rights, and freedoms
provided by law. The High Court and Supreme Court have the power to quash
F.I.R. on lawful grounds by the virtue of Sec. 561-A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1898. These powers of the Courts are referred to as ‘inh erent powers
of Court’.
Quashing of FIR/Criminal Proceedings Under Section 482 of
CrPC
By Albab Alam | Views 7649

19 0 1 stumbleupon0 Blogger4 googleplus1 Digg0

Black's law dictionary defines quash as to overthrow / to abate / to vacate / to annul / to make void.
In simplest terms, quashing of criminal proceedings would mean ceasing the legal machinery which
had been set in motion. This is usually done after a First Information Report (hereinafter referred to
as FIR) is filed, before the chargesheet-filing stage. Still, proceedings can be revoked even after the
chargesheet has been filed but that is usually discouraged by the Supreme Court.

2) Legal provisions in India for quashing of criminal proceedings

Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code/CrPC), 1973 has laid out the provisions
for quashing of criminal proceedings.
Section 482 o CrPC says,

"Saving of inherent powers of High Court Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the
inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any
order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice."

The decisions of High Courts in this regard, ought to be guided by following twin objectives, as laid
down inNarinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466:
i) Prevent abuse of the process of court.
ii) Secure the ends of justice.

3) Rules governing the petitions which pray for quashing of criminal proceedings

Section 482 of CrPC, which deals with the power of court to quash criminal proceedings, hasn’t
given the details of that what exactly constitutes the inherent power of court. In that sense, the Code
is very vague as it doesn’t lay out the grounds on which the foundations of the inherent power of
court lay.

Furthermore, there has been consistent inconsistency in the judgments of the Supreme Court of
India with regard to the application of Section 482 of CrPC. Consequently, the application of section
482 of CrPC is a very agitated issue in litigation along with being a strongly debated concept in the
legal academic circles.
Nevertheless, there are some cases which have got wide acceptance in the legal fraternity and
hence, are used as the minor guiding principles (landmark cases being the major ones) governing
the cases of quashing of criminal proceedings.

Some of these cases are:

Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi (2013) 9 SCC 293:
In order to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings raised by an
accused under Section 482 of the CrPC, the following questions have to be analyzed by the High
Court:
i) Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the
material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

ii) Whether the material relied upon by the accused 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 the accusations as false?

iii) Whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution /
complainant; and / or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution /
complainant?

iv) Whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court and hence,
would not serve the ends of justice?
If the answer to all the questions is in affirmative, the Court should quash the proceedings by
exercising its power under Section 482 of CrPC.
Parbatbhai Ahir v. State of Gujarat (4 Oct, 2017):
In this case, the Supreme Court referred to various precedents and summarised the following
principles which ought to govern the power of High Court under Section 482 of CrPC, "
i) Section 482preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of
any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only
recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a
criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and
the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an
offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions
ofSection 320of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is
attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise
of its jurisdiction underSection 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would
justify the exercise of the inherent power.

iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised;
a) To secure the ends of justice.
b) To prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the
ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

vi) In the exercise of the power under ction 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has
been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous
and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity
cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the
dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon
society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of
public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an
overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as
the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership
or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing
where parties have settled the dispute.

ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise
between the disputants, the possibility of aconviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal
proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and.

x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and above. Economic
offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie
beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified
in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic
fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic
system will weigh in the balance."

4) Quashing of criminal proceedings in matrimonial cases

Section 498 - A was brought in by the Indian legislature to help the hapless women who were worst
victims of their husbands’ ire. But, of late, there have been innumerable instances of misuse of
Section 498 - A. The situation has become so severe that there are dedicated non-government
organizations (NGOs) which solely focus on advocating the repeal of Section 498. Also, there have
been numerous instances in India, where the courts have criticised the provisions of Section 498 –
A, decried its use, and prodded the legislature to have a look at the issue. For instance, the
Supreme Court of India observed in the case ofSushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (19 July,
2005), "…The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly
contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona
fide and have filed the cases with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in
all cases wipe out the ignomy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage
adds to the misery..."
The Supreme Court of India has, many a times, held that the proceedings being pursued under
Section 498 - A of IPC ought to be quashed if the chances of conviction are very bleak or the case
has been filed with ulterior motives (in most cases, the ulterior motive is to settle personal scores).

In B S Joshi v. State of Haryana 2003 (4) SCC 675, the Supreme Court justified the exercise of
powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings in matrimonial cases to secure the ends
of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case even where the offences alleged
are non-compoundable. This very judgment was used by the Delhi High Court to quash criminal
proceedings which had been initiated under Section 498 - A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
referred to as IPC), in the case of Girish Pandey v. State (20 Oct, 2016).

Furthermore, it has been held in the case of Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (17 Oct,
2012)by the Supreme Court of India that making general allegations against husband without any
conclusive proof is ground enough to quash criminal proceedings instituted under Section 498- A of
IPC.

5) Landmark cases related to abatement of criminal proceedings

Despite all the contradictions that appear in the various judgments of the supreme Court with respect
to quashing of criminal proceedings, there are following two cases which are considered string
authorities on the subject:
In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 AIR 604, the Supreme Court had laid down
following seven categories of cases in which the court can quash criminal proceedings:
i. Where the allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety,
do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
ii. Where the allegations in the FIR and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview ofSection 155(2) of the Code.
iii. Where the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
iv. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer, unless a Magistrate has issued
an order for the same, as contemplated under Section 155(2)of the Code.
v. Where the allegations made in the FIR are absurd to the extent that no prudent man can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
vi. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions f the Code or the
concerned Act, under which a criminal proceeding is instituted, with regard to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and / or where there is a specific provision inthe Codeor the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

vii. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide intention and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to private and / or personal grudge.

In the case of R P Kapur v. State of Punjab 1960 AIR 862, the Supreme Court of India held that
criminal proceedings against a person can be quashed if the case being dealt with belongs to any
one of the following three classes of cases:
i) Where there is a legal bar against institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings.
ii) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute an offence, even if taken at face value and in
their entirety.
iii) Where the allegations made constitute an offence, but there is no evidence which can prove
them.
How Quashing of FIR, Important Ground for Quashed FIR
in Law
Quashing of FIR is one of the most important part of Law, because many time people are involved
the other persons without any reason. Actually a LAW is made for the benefit of the people. A law is
made to protect people and especially the ones which have been suppressed by the dominating
ones.

FIR can be quashed by High Court in accordance with Section 482 CrPC. You have to file an
application to quash the FIR. You have to give the grounds on which FIR should be quashed. The
concerned High Court can be moved if and only if the FIR does not establish a prima facie case
against the accused.

Article 498-A and Quashing of FIR

The most common case in which a High Court uses its power is the case of Dowry Harassment and
Section 498-A (domestic violence). Some women use this as a tool to pressurize the in-laws or
husband and filing of false cases is rife. The aggrieved person can approach a High Court and
request the court to quash the FIR as it has been lodged with the only purpose to defame or trouble
him.

Major Grounds For Quashing of FIR in Legal Terms

1. No offense whatsoever made out from the contents of FIR
2. Malafides of Complaianant is patent on the face of the Record
3. An attempt to convert a pure civil liability into criminal liability in part of Prosection

Important Points For Quashing of FIR under Section 482 of CrPC

1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process
of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only
recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;
2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a
criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and
the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an
offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions
of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is
attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
3. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership
or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing
where parties have settled the dispute;

Important Points Forr Quashing of FIR under Article 498-A

1.The most common case in which a High Court uses its power is the case of Dowry Harassment
and Section 498-A (domestic violence). Some women use this as a tool to pressurize the in-laws or
husband and filing of false cases is rife.
2. The aggrieved person can approach a High Court and request the court to quash the FIR as it has
been lodged with the only purpose to defame or trouble him. There have been many cases in which
an appeal was made to the Supreme Court of India that a particular offence FIR cannot be quashed
or it is not under the jurisdiction of a High Court to quash it, responding to this the Supreme Court in
all the cases has very clearly specified that Section 482 of the CrPC gives the High Court this power
and it cannot be questioned.
3. The High Court can use its inherent powers to quash an FIR of any offence in which it is satisfied
that it was required to do so.

What is Meant by Quash Petition?

A motion to quash is a request to a court to render a previous decision of that court or a lower
judicial body null or invalid. It can arise out of mistakes made by any lawyer in a court proceeding.
For example, a party that receives improper service of process may file a motion to quash.

Can an FIR be Quashed?

The FIR or the First Information Report which has been lodged by the police after the complainant
made a complaint can be quashed or can be made void if it is lodged illegally. An FIR can be
quashed by the High Court if the court is convinced that the person is innocent and has been falsely
implicated.

Can FIR can be Quashed Before Chargesheet?

Rule 1:- Charge Sheet or FIR can be quashed in case of any technical fallacy either in the FIR or in
the investigation report of the Police. Rule 4:- Quashing of Chargesheet u/s 482 is done after court
presents the chargesheet and before charges are framed and trial is underway.

What is Section 482 of CRPC?

482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect
the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to
any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice.
Friend Law Case Citation
354-a PPC
Citation Name : 2006 PLD 335 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SHAH MUHAMMAD
Side Opponent : State
--Ss. 345 & 265---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 452, 354-a , 337-A, 148 & 149---Constitution
of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Plea of compromise---Refusal of Sessions
Judge to accept application of the petitioners filed under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. and deciding to proceed
with the trial on the ground that no compromise was effected between the accused persons and all
the legal heirs of the deceased as except one, the others were not party to the said compromise---
Validity---High Court dismissed the constitutional petition and directed the Trial Court to proceed with
the trial in accordance with law.
Citation Name : 2005 YLR 1408 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Mst. TESLEEM MAI
Side Opponent : D.I.G., MULTAN RANGE, MULTAN
-S.354-a ---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.22-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--
-Constitutional petition ---Registration of case---Accused had allegedly damaged the standing crop of
the complainant by ploughing the field with tractor and when she restrained them she was assaulted,
made naked and tied with a rope by them---Justice of Peace, after obtaining a report from the S.H.O.
concerned, had declined to order the registration of case against the accused---Local police was
stated to be in league with the accused---Allegations levelled by the complainant disclosed the
commission of a cognizable offence---District police officer concerned was directed to get the case
registered against the accused on the written complaint of the complainant and get the same
investigated by a police officer other than the said S.H.O. and his subordinates---Constitutional
petition was disposed of accordingly.
Citation Name : 2004 YLR 2392 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : NAVEED
Side Opponent : THE STATE
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.354-a ---Bail, refusal of---Accused alongwith his co-
accused had allegedly put off the clothes of the victim lady---Victim in. her statement under S.161,
Cr. P. C. had fully supported the prosecution case involving the accused---Accused had been placed
in Column No.3 of the challan--Case of accused was hit by the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr. P.
C. ---Bail was declined to accused in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2004 YLR 911 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SHAH MUHAMMAD
Side Opponent : THE STATE
----Ss. 302/452/354-a /337-A/148/149--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 265-K, 345(2) &
439---Revision--Dismissal of application of accused moved under S. 265-K, Cr. P. C.---Validity---
Parties had entered into a compromise at the time of grant of pre-arrest bail to accused--Agreement
arrived at although revealed that some amount out of the total amount of "Badl-e-Sulh" had been
paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, yet their affidavits did not disclose the receipt `of any such
payment to them by the- accused---Shares of the legal heirs of the deceased were not even
mentioned in their affidavits--Separate statements of the said legal heirs were not recorded by the
Sessions Court at the time of confirmation of ad interim bail before arrest of accused---Record did
not show if any amount was received by the legal heirs collectively or individually--Compromise
effected between the parties at bail stage could not be considered to have given a legal effect for
acquittal of the accused in the main case, because according to S. 345(2), Cr. P. C. it was the Court
seized of the trial/prosecution which had to satisfy itself about the genuineness and voluntariness of
the compromise before granting permission for the same---Accused also could not claim acquittal in
a slipshod manner under S. 265-K, Cr. P. C. merely because of compromise effected between the
parties at bail stage in the presence of S. 311, P. P. C. empowering the Court to convict the accused
in spite of the waiver or compounding of right of Qisas by the legal heirs of the deceased and,
sentenced them with imprisonment up to 14 years keeping in view the facts and circumstances of
the case---Impugned order did not suffer front any illegality---Revision petition was dismiss in limine
accordingly.
Citation Name : 2004 PCRLJ 96 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ZAFAR IQBAL
Side Opponent : THE STATE
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-L(ii), 354 & 354-a --Bail, grant of ---Challan submitted
before Trial Court did not contain provisions of S.354-a , P.P.C.---Statement of victim recorded by
police showed that she was dragged by accused, but no allegation existed that string of her Shalwar
was cut or she was denuded in public---Whether any offence under S.354-a , P.P.C. was committed
or not would be determined by Trial Court after recording of some evidence---Offence under S.354,
P.P.C. was bailable and under S.337-L(ii), P.P.C. was not punishable with ten years or more---
Accused were admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2004 MLD 1425 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : BABAR alias BABRI
Side Opponent : THE STATE
----Ss.354-a & 354---Appreciation of evidence---Statement of victim girl, who was star witness in the
case, could not be disbelieved because she had no enmity with accused---Case was of promptly
lodged F.I.R. and prosecution witness was an independent witness---Though some discrepancies
were found between statements of prosecution witness and victim, but as a whole their statements
corroborated each other---Victim stood to the test of lengthy cross-examination and defence had
failed to create any dent in her story---
Citation Name : 2003 YLR 1596 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Mst. SAIRAN BIBI
Side Opponent : THE STATE
----S.497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.354-a ---Cancellation of bail---F.I.R. had been lodged
after a delay of one year, one month and eighteen days---Accused had also got a case registered
under sections 302/109/148/149, P. P. C. prior to the present case wherein the complainant's son
had been mentioned as accused and in the background of enmity and ill-will the delay in reporting
the matter to the police had attained significance---Accused were not alleged to have misused the
concession after their release on bail---Cancellation of bail granted to accused was not in the interest
of justice in circumstances---Petition was dismissed accordingly.
Citation Name : 2003 MLD 1921 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ALLAH BAKHSH
Side Opponent : THE STATE
----S.561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.354-a /148/149/109--Petition for quashing of order---
Order of Magistrate whereby accused was sent to the judicial lock-up for offence under Ss.354-a
/148/149/109, P.P.C. had been sought to be quashed by the accused---Complainant in her F.I.R.
had alleged that accused and his co-accused had caught her and her daughters from their hair and
dragged them in thoroughfare as a result of which their clothes were torn and she became naked
and her daughter semi-naked and in that condition they were exposed to the public view---F.I.R.
showed that offence under S.354-a , P.P.C., had been made out against the accused---Magistrate,
in circumstances had rightly sent accused to judicial lock-up---Petition filed by accused under S.561-
A, Cr.P.C. for quashing of order of Magistrate being without substance, was dismissed.
Citation Name : 2003 MLD 1848 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : ALLAH DITTA
Side Opponent : THE STATE
----S.497--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.354 & 354-a ---Bail, grant of---Accused who were named
in the F.I.R., allegedly alongwith their co-accused had made wife of complainant all naked in a public
thoroughfare and in that condition exposed her to public view and had committed indecent acts with
her---Some explanation for the delay in lodging F.I.R., was given but question of its reasonableness
or otherwise was a matter of deeper appreciation of evidence which was neither permissible nor
desirable at bail stage---Statement of victim under S.161, Cr.P.C. was almost in line with the F.I.R.
and accused on the basis of same alone Were prima facie connected with alleged offence---
Procurement of affidavits of some of witnesses was indication of an attempt on the part of accused
to tamper with prosecution evidence--Offence of accused not only was heinous in nature, but also
covered under prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.---Bail application was dismissed.
Citation Name : 2002 YLR 1154 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ZAMAN
Side Opponent : THE STATE
----Ss.10(4), 10(3) & 11---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 354-a /149, 452/34 & 148--Appreciation of
evidence---Ocular account regarding trespass of accused in the residential Kotha of the complainant
and abduction of his daughter by them from there was consistent and was corroborated by the
motive and the recovery of broken bangles and the crime empties from the spot---No previous
enmity existed for false implication of accused in the case who had been ascribed specific role and
participation in the commission of the heinous crime---Abductee had been recovered from the
possession of accused who had led to the recovery of her torn-clothes---Report of the Chemical
Examiner was in the positive---No witness from the public was examined by the prosecution to show
that the abductee was stripped of in public and such allegation had been introduced by her during
investigation which was not corroborated by any other prosecution witness---Conviction and
sentence of accused under S.354-a /149, P. P. C. were consequently set aside---Conviction of
accused, under S.10 (4) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was
altered to S.10 (3) of the said Ordinance and the sentence of death was reduced to imprisonment for
life in circumstances--Other accused alleged to have made only ineffective firing appeared to have
been involved falsely in the case being the relatives of the main accused and they were acquitted on
benefit of doubt accordingly.
 PPC

In case of accident only 320 PPC will attract even having no driving license. (2000 P.Cr. L.J 230)

Confessional statement which is not corroborated by other independent evidence has got no value in
eye of law. (S. 302 PPC / PLJ 2000 Quetta 1357)

Possession implicate of a counterfeits currency notes does not constitute an offence under S. 489 B
PPC (S. 489 B PPC / 1996 P.Cr. L. J 815)

Qatal does not means murder. Qatal amount in which intention is involved qatal I khata is not qatal
amad and fell u/s 320 ppc (PLJ 1996 Cr.c (Pesh) 733)

Civil suit is pending before civil court. Bail granted. (Ss. 468, 471, 420 PPC / 2007 SCMR 1546,
2005 YLR 475, 2008 YLR 778, 2008 YLR 732, 2008 YLR 2953)

Nobody hit no crime empties were recovered. Bail allowed (u/s 324, 353, 34 PPC / 2007 P. Cr.L.J
98)

Two kinds of abscondance (I ) in which destroy prosecution evidence (ii) abscondance to save
himself from harassment of police, no evidence of destruction of evidence. Bail Allowed. Bail
allowed. (u/s 324, 430, 425, 34 PPC / PLD 2007 (Kar)127, 2009 YLR 816)

Accused were close relatives of the complainant and is no reasons for their false implication in case
(u/s 379, 354, 452, 148, 149 PPC / 2007 YLR 1192)

Material was not sent to expert for opinion. Material was black paper and a bottle of chemical.
Nothing on record that such material could be used for counterfeiting the currency . further inquiry
allowed (S. 489-D/34 PPC / 2009 YLR 5 Islamabad)
Complainant initially had nominated the accused in FIR but later on through an affidavit he had
expressed has satisfied with regard to the innocence of accused and did not want to proceed with
matter. Further inquiry. Bail allowed. (u/s 365/34 PPC / 2009 SCMR 448)

u/s 420, 468, 471 PPC and other cognate offences both remedies are available criminal and civil but
the preference was given to civil court to decide the matter in accordance with law. (PSC (crl.)
1993 SC PK 676 (a) )

Bail granted on compromise in non- compoundable offence. (S. 365/34 PPC / 2009 SCMR 448)

S.354-A PPC would be attracted where victim was stripped of her clothes and was exposed to public
view in that condition. (S.354-A PPC / 2011 YLR 212)

Preparation of CD of scene of occurrence is not a proof of offence had been committed. (S. 371 B
294 PPC / 2011 YLR 353)

S. 420, 468, 471, 419 PPC (2011 YLR 1153, 2011 YLR 1236, 2011 YLR 1599)

Cancellation bail u/s 406 PPC (2009 YLR 1270, 2009 P.Cr.L.J 1302 )

Cheque book was lost application was moved to banks manager for stop of payment. Also to civil
court is pending before the civil court. Bail confirmed. (S. 489 F PPC / 2009 YLR 28 Lah.)

Earlier bail application of accused was dismissed, standard of complainant was recorded by trial
court who had exonerated the accused. Bail allowed (S. 395 PPC / 2007 P. Cr. L.J 1918)

Absconding of accused effect. Co-accused had already been acquitted by trial court. No recovery
was effected. Bail cannot by refused only on ground of ascendance. (S. 392,397,413, 216-A PPC
/ 2009 YLR 925)

Bail granted. (S. 382/411 PPC / 2010 YLR 2716, 2006 YLR 2987, 2002 MLD 1437, 2001 YLR 2309)

Bail question contention that the case fell u/s 411 PPC. It was not coming on record as to why
identification test of the petition was not held. When his name did not appear in the FIR . the non
holding of identification test of the petitioner through eye witnesses would weight in favor of his being
released on bail when his name did not appear in the FIR. (1995 P. Cr. L.J 88, 1996 PSC (crl.)SC
328)

Not nominated in the FIR no featured description in FIR only recovery of stolen car from the
possession of the petitioner does not make the petitioner on accused of theft. (S. 381 A PPC / 209
YLR 106 Kar.)

Complaint got registered FIR and nominated four accused in FIR. After two days complainant on his
supplementary statement somersault and aelipsed. Two nominated accused person and introduced
three other persons to have committed alleged offence of dacoity. The case of further inquiry. Bail
accepted. (S.392/395 PPC / PLJ 2000 Cr.c Lah. 558 )

Such the case would fall under s. 411 PPC. Bail allowed. (1989 ALD 555(1), 1989 ALD 570 (1))

Litigation between the parties is pending before the civil court about same cause of action which is
subject matter of present FIR. Petitioner has also leveled allegations against SHO. FIR was lodged
after delay of four months which has not been explained. bail confirmed (pre-arrest bail. S. 380 PPC
/ PLJ 2000 Lah. 193)

Case does not fall under prohibitory clause. Bail allowed. (S. 419, 420, 411 PPC / PLJ 2000 Pesh.
1028)
Case of prima facie there is only recovery of stolen goods from the petitioner and as (S.457, 380
PPC / PLJ 2000 Cr.c Pesh. 401)

An accused of sec. 430 PPC cannot be challenged u/s 379 PPC as 379 PPC is not applicable in a
case of canal diminution of water. (S. 430, 379 PPC / PLD 1997 Lah. 689)

Identification parade is necessary when the accused were unknown to the complainant before the
occurrence. (S. 392, 396 PPC / 1995 P.Cr. L.J 88)

In case of further inquiry, the bail is the right of accused. (S. 382, 170, 171, 395, 411 PPC / PLJ
2000 Lah. 711)

There is previous litigation between (S. 394, 411 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 828)

Though the offence is not compoundable but the compromise was affected by the investigation of
elders of locality at bail stage consideration. (S. 496-A, 365-B, 380 PPC / 2009 YLR 49(a) Pesh.)

No evidence of buying or selling woman agent. Petition allowed. (S.371, 371-B PPC / 2009 YLR 60
Lah.)

Victim is 8/9 years old. He could not rush himself to police station this delay cannot be considered.
Even if there is not actual penetration, entry of male organ of accused into artificial cavity between
the thighs of victim amounted to penetration and canal intercourse. Bail allowed.(S. 377 PPC / PLJ
2000 Pesh. 955)

No evidence of enmity between the parties. No reason was shown as to falsely implication os
accused person. Specific role was attributed to accused offence is punishable with 25 years. Bail
cancelled. (S. 12/7/79 , 377 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 1219)

Both the offences are not compoundable however, parties have compounded out of court and do not
want to prosecute the case further. Bail accepted.(S. 377 PPC , 12/7/79 H.O, PLJ 1999 Cr.c Lah.
861, 2009 P. Cr.L.J 260, 2009 P. Cr.L.J 197, 2009 P. Cr.L.J 260)

Victim accompanied the accused voluntarily abduction can not be proved and the S. 346 is bail bale.
Bail accepted (S. 12/7/79 H.O, 346 PPC / 2001 P. Cr. L.J 1022)
Free fight between parties using hatchets and latis resulting into lodging of cross cases against each
other. Complainant side accused enlarged on bail. Other party is also entitled to bail (S. 324 PPC
/ 2010 CMR 1219)

Only for this that the accused says that the allegations leveled against accused are false. The
criminal proceedings cannot be extinguished. (S.182/211 PPC / PLD 1993 kar. 355)

Punishment is seven years and bail able offence. Bail allowed. (S.201 PPC / 2009 MLD 37)

Offence being punishable with five years as rule. Bail confirmed. (S. 337 A(i), 337 F (i), 504, 34 PPC
/ 2007 P. Cr. L.J 55, 116)

Pre arrest bail . four culprits had been saddled but no specific injury had been attributed to any
culprit. It was impossible to determine with any degree of certainty as to whether the present
petitioner were responsible for commission of bailabe offence or the non bailable offence. Bail
confirmed. (S. 337 A (i), 337 A (ii) PPC / PLD 2007 Lah 633)

During investigation number of respectable was produce before I.O who stated about the innocence
of petitioner. One I.O found innocent and one found guilty case of further inquiry. Allowed. (S. 324/34
PPC / 2009 MLD 88 Lah.)
Two kinds of abscondance. In which destroy prosecution evidence and abscondance to save himself
from harassment. No destroy of evidence. Bail allowed. (S. 324, 430, 425, 34 PPC / PLD 2007 Kar.
127)

The role attributed to the petitioner is not repeated so the offence u/s 324 does not sontitute by the
petitioner. Delay in lodging the FIR is two hours while the distance between the spot and police
station is only 100 steps. Bail accepted. (S.324/147, 148,149, 504/114, 337 A (iii) PPC 2001 P.
Cr.L.J 1127)

During police encounter nobody was injured from both sides not any vehicle was hit. Even the firing
was attributed with lethal weapons like as klashin cove. So the case of further inquiry. (S.
324,353,148,149 PPC / 1996 P. Cr.L.J 1573, 2007 P. Cr.L.J )

Challan submitted to anti terrorism court challenge to. Offences were committed on account of
previous enmity and a definite motive. Hence not tri able by anti terrorism court buy by ordinary court
of competent jurisdiction. (S. 365,337,337 F(i), 148,149 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 799)

Petitioner alleged with six injuries but only one is found on skull of victim of assault supported by
medical evidence not punishable with 10 years or more no explanation regarding injuries has been
offered by prosecution who is aggressor or aggressed is a material question. No more required for
investigation. Bail allowed. (S.337 A (ii), 337 L (ii), 34 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 878)

When an accused of same offence declared innocent by police. The other co accused should be
given the benefit of doubt. (S.324/34 / PLJ 1997 Pesh. 1120)

State counsel stated that petitioner armed with weapons in furtherance of their common intention to
cause hurt, therefore at bail stage their liability cannot be segregated . injuries attributed to petitioner
also do not fall within prohibitory clause discretion of bail should be extended to them specially when
they are behind bars for the last three months. Bail allowed. (S. 337 A (i), 337 A (iii), 337 L (ii)(iii)
PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 1384)

Nature of injuries do not bring case within prohibitory clause, this appears to be case of brawl.
Where both parties scuffled and injured each other opposite party has already been granted brawl.
Being cross case it is natter of further inquiry as to which of party was aggressor. Bail
allowed. (S. 337 A (ii), 337 A (iii), 337 F (6), 337 D (2), 34 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 1276)

Free fight between parties using hatchets and lathis resulting into lodging of cross version against
each other. Difficult to ascertain at such stage as to who was aggressor. Bail allowed. (2010 SCMR
1219 / S. 324 PPC)
Benefit of partial compromise can not be given to the accused with out the consent of all legal heirs
of the deceased. Bail rejected. (S. 497(5), 302,34,109 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 890)

Old age alone would not be a ground on which bail could be granted under all circumstance.
Abscondance of accuses was another factor on which too bail could be refused. Empties and spent
bullets were recovered from the spot. Two witnesses were supporting the prosecution version. Bail
refused. (S. 302, 324, 34 PPC / PLJ 2000 Pesh. 937)

vicarious liability (S. 34 PPC / 1986 NLR SC 885, PLJ 2000 Pesh 793)

To grant of bail when prosecution has no other evidence against him and he otherwise, entitled to
bail. (S. 109 PPC / NLR 2001 454, NLR 2000 5572)

Non of accused was nominated in FIR and no identification parade had taken place which necessary
for just decision of case. Identification parade at police station has no legal role in eye of law.(S.
302,392/3, 411/34 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 631)

Accused who had a already been bailed out by court, had prayed for incorporation of S.368 PPC . in
bail order, contending that earlier that section was not mentioned in FIR. Thus it was not pressed in
to service in main bail application. No allegation u/s 368 PPC was leveled against accused in FIR.
But same was invoked much after even otherwise invocation of that section would not make much
difference respecting fate of case. Accused would have been admitted bail. (1993 P.Cr.L.J 743)

Victim accompanied the accused voluntarily abduction can not be proved and the S. 346 is bail bale.
Bail accepted (S. 12/7/79 H.O, 346 PPC / 2001 P. Cr. L.J 1022)

Free fight between parties using hatchets and latis resulting into lodging of cross cases against each
other. Complainant side accused enlarged on bail. Other party is also entitled to bail (S. 324 PPC
/ 2010 CMR 1219)
Only for this that the accused says that the allegations leveled against accused are false. The
criminal proceedings cannot be extinguished. (S.182/211 PPC / PLD 1993 kar. 355)

Punishment is seven years and bail able offence. Bail allowed. (S.201 PPC / 2009 MLD 37)

Offence being punishable with five years as rule. Bail confirmed. (S. 337 A(i), 337 F (i), 504, 34 PPC
/ 2007 P. Cr. L.J 55, 116)
Pre arrest bail . four culprits had been saddled but no specific injury had been attributed to any
culprit. It was impossible to determine with any degree of certainty as to whether the present
petitioner were responsible for commission of bailabe offence or the non bailable offence. Bail
confirmed. (S. 337 A (i), 337 A (ii) / PLD 2007 Lah 633)

Punishment is five years not covered by prohibitory clause. Bail allowed. (S. 337 A (ii) PPC / 2009
MLD 21 Kar.)

During investigation number of respectable was produce before I.O who stated about the innocence
of petitioner. One I.O found innocent and one found guilty case of further inquiry. Allowed. (S. 324/34
PPC / 2009 MLD 88 Lah.)

Two kinds of abscondance. In which destroy prosecution evidence and abscondance to save himself
from harassment. No destroy of evidence. Bail allowed. (S. 324, 430, 425, 34 PPC / PLD 2007 Kar.
127)

The role attributed to the petitioner is not repeated so the offence u/s 324 does not sontitute by the
petitioner. Delay in lodging the FIR is two hours while the distance between the spot and police
station is only 100 steps. Bail accepted. (S.324/147, 148,149, 504/114, 337 A (iii) PPC 2001 P.
Cr.L.J 1127)

During police encounter nobody was injured from both sides not any vehicle was hit. Even the firing
was attributed with lethal weapons like as klashin cove. So the case of further inquiry. (S.
324,353,148,149 PPC / 1996 P. Cr.L.J 1573, 2007 P. Cr.L.J )

Challan submitted to anti terrorism court challenge to. Offences were committed on account of
previous enmity and a definite motive. Hence not tri able by anti terrorism court buy by ordinary court
of competent jurisdiction. (S. 365,337,337 F(i), 148,149 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 799)

Petitioner alleged with six injuries but only one is found on skull of victim of assault supported by
medical evidence not punishable with 10 years or more no explanation regarding injuries has been
offered by prosecution who is aggressor or aggressed is a material question. No more required for
investigation. Bail allowed. (S.337 A (ii), 337 L (ii), 34 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 878)

When an accused of same offence declared innocent by police. The other co accused should be
given the benefit of doubt. (S.324/34 / PLJ 1997 Pesh. 1120)

State counsel stated that petitioner armed with weapons in furtherance of their common intention to
cause hurt, therefore at bail stage their liability cannot be segregated . injuries attributed to petitioner
also do not fall within prohibitory clause discretion of bail should be extended to them specially when
they are behind bars for the last three months. Bail allowed. (S. 337 A (i), 337 A (iii), 337 L (ii)(iii)
PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 1384)

Nature of injuries do not bring case within prohibitory clause, this appears to be case of brawl.
Where both parties scuffled and injured each other opposite party has already been granted brawl.
Being cross case it is natter of further inquiry as to which of party was aggressor. Bail
allowed. (S. 337 A (ii), 337 A (iii), 337 F (6), 337 D (2), 34 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 1276)
Benefit of partial compromise can not be given to the accused with out the consent of all legal heirs
of the deceased. Bail rejected. (S. 497(5), 302,34,109 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 890)

Old age alone would not be a ground on which bail could be granted under all circumstance.
Abscondance of accuses was another factor on which too bail could be refused. Empties and spent
bullets were recovered from the spot. Two witnesses were supporting the prosecution version. Bail
refused. (S. 302, 324, 34 PPC / PLJ 2000 Pesh. 937)

vicarious liability (S. 34 PPC / 1986 NLR SC 885, PLJ 2000 Pesh 793)

To grant of bail when prosecution has no other evidence against him and he otherwise, entitled to
bail. (S. 109 PPC / NLR 2001 454, NLR 2000 5572)

Non of accused was nominated in FIR and no identification parade had taken place which necessary
for just decision of case. Identification parade at police station has no legal role in eye of law.(S.
302,392/3, 411/34 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 631)

Petitioner was not nominated in FIR. No recovery. (PLJ 2000 Lah. 606)

Not nominated in FIR. No direct evidence is available in such situation the case is of further
probe. (S.302 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 706)
Petitioner is named in FIR as empty handed. He caused no injury to deceased or any of witnesses of
occurrence. Only lalkara is attributed to him makes his case of further inquiry. He is behind bars for
last more than 8 months. Bail allowed. (S. 302/34 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 960)

Bail grant of on ground of sickness as per report of doctor, petitioner is suffering from chonic
schizpphronia to and his treatment in jail is not possible. (S. 302 PPC / PLJ 2000 Pesh. 970)

Only one injury to deceased was attributed to co accused. Accused was attributed only that he along
with others took the deceased from his arms and legs and threw on the ground and the other
accused blew the dagger on deceased. The case is one of further inquiry. Bail accepted.
(S.302/109/148/149 PPC / 2001 P.Cr.L.J 1038 )

Role attributed to petitioner that he was present at the spot armed with pistol. But no attribution of
injury to the deceased or any other person. Only co accused has snatched his pistol, co accused
allegedly to cause injury to deceased person. No recovery has been made from the petitioner.
Question if petitioner has shared his common intention with his co accused is to be seen a time of
trial. At this stage case comes into the further inquiry. Bail allowed. (S. 302/34, 109 PPC / PLJ 2000
Lah. 1416)

Witnesses of occasion informed police after two months of registration of FIR against some other
person. Chief witness is real nephew of deceased. Further judicial confession has always been
treated a very weak type of evidence. No empties were recovered from the spot. Bail granted. (S.
302/34, 109 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 879)

Petitioner was declared innocent by the police during the investigation and with approval of DSP, his
case was recommended for discharge. Petitioner did not cause any injury to deceased . injury
allegedly attributed to petitioner on person injured PW is on right lower part of thigh which according
to medico legal report is declared as “ghyr jaifa badiha” and is punishable with three years R.I
question of sharing common intention by petitioner along with other co accused can only be
determined by trial court after recording evidence. Prima facie case of petitioner does not fall within
prohibitory clause of sec.497 Cr.p.C grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal is
exceptional accordingly. Bail allowed.(S. 302,324,109,179,148 PPC / PLJ 2000 Lah. 1392)

Ss. 148, 149 and 441-Unlawful assembly-Criminal trespass.

The attempt on the part of M to prevent A from using his land amounted to criminal trespass, and if
he collected several persons with a view to resisting cultivation of the land by A, he and the persons
so collected constituted an unlawful assembly. It must be remembered that the right of private
defence is always against an act that is an offence, and on the evidence in this case it is impossible
to hold that when A in 1947 sowed the land or attempted to exercise on it some right of ownership
he was committing an offence.

Right of private defence

Right of private defence of person or property-Right of private defence is always against an act that
is an offence-No such right established in this case.

No question of self-defence would arise if either the prosecution case as disclosed by the witnesses
or the findings of the learned Judge be accepted. The defence allegation cannot possibly be
accepted in view of the inability of the defence to explain the injuries that were found on the persons
of members of A's party, but even if it be assumed that A's party attempted to cultivate the land by
force, it would make no difference in law as they were entitled to do so and M had no right to prevent
them merely by reason of his having wrongfully cultivated the land six months earlier in the
preceding kharif. The attack on A's party having been admitted, it was for the defence to prove with
that degree of probability as is required by the Court when an accused person is required to prove a
fact, that they were justified to kill three men and badly injured four others.

P L D 1949 Lahore 421