The Supreme Court docket has held that it’s impermissible for the Excessive Courts to eliminate the quashing petition with out figuring out the veracity of the prayer for quashing a FIR.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria put aside the Allahabad Excessive Court docket’s order, which had mechanically disposed of the quashing petition by merely directing the police to observe the rules concerning an arrest laid down in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014), with out figuring out the veracity of the prayer for quashing and deciding the petition on its advantage.
“…as soon as a petition underneath Article 226 of the Structure of India and/or Part 482 of Code of Legal Process, 1973, and/or Part 528 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is most popular, the identical ought to be selected deserves, reasonably than dismissing the identical as infructuous or by directing the Police to observe Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (supra).”, the court docket held.
The dispute between the events issues entry to the burial floor on the public graveyard (Qabristan) at Village Dundahera, Ghaziabad, resulting in the registration of an FIR.
The appellants-petitioners approached the Excessive Court docket for the quashing of the FIR, however the Excessive Court docket, with out contemplating the deserves of the problem, disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the involved Police to observe the order handed within the matter of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, resulting in an enchantment earlier than the Supreme Court docket by the accused individuals.
Permitting the enchantment, the bench famous that the Excessive Court docket had erred in quashing the FIR with out contemplating the deserves of the matter.
“when petitioner(s) have sought quashing of the FIR, the Excessive Court docket must have thought of the deserves of the matter and determined the identical in some way, contemplating the fabric obtainable and the relevant regulation.”, the court docket noticed.
To recall, within the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 880, a four-step course of was laid down that must be thought of by the Excessive Court docket whereas listening to quashing petitions.
(i) The first step, whether or not the fabric relied upon by the accused is sound, affordable, and indubitable, i.e., the supplies is of sterling and impeccable high quality?
(ii) Step two, whether or not the fabric relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained within the costs levelled towards the accused, i.e., the fabric is adequate to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained within the criticism, i.e., the fabric is such, as would persuade an affordable individual to dismiss and condemn the factual foundation of the accusations as false.
(iii) Step three, whether or not the fabric relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the fabric is such, that it can’t be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Step 4, whether or not continuing with the trial would end in an abuse of technique of the court docket, and wouldn’t serve the ends of justice?
Referring to the exams laid down in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra), the Court docket famous that the Excessive Court docket had disposed of the quashing petition mechanically, with out deciding the petition on its deserves.
“…the impugned order is put aside and the matter is remitted again to the Excessive Court docket for contemplating afresh on deserves.”, the court docket held.
The enchantment was allowed.
Trigger Title: MD. MASHOOD & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF UP & ORS.
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 264
Click on right here to obtain order
Look:
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bibek Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Akshat Srivastava, AOR Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv. Mr. Sudhakar Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Arun Singh, Adv. Mr. Achyut Saxena, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Mr. Abhishek Saket, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Prajapati, Adv. Ms. Ashwina Lakra, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Singh, Adv.
