#Quashing FIR

The court held that generic accusations of 'inciting the husband' without particulars of cruelty or harassment fail to make out a prima facie case under Section 498A IPC against in-laws. The ruling reinforces that matrimonial disputes cannot be weaponised to rope in relatives through boilerplate FIRs, protecting elderly parents and distant relatives from vexatious prosecution.

The Meghalaya High Court quashed a POCSO FIR against a husband after the adolescent couple married and had a child, applying the Wahlang framework to verify the survivor's informed consent and recognize matrilineal customs. The court mandated scheme benefits for the victim and child within eight weeks and ordered judicial monitoring to ensure compliance.

The Calcutta High Court quashed a Section 498A complaint against parents-in-law, ruling it was a mala fide counterblast to an eviction order passed under the Senior Citizens Act. The court held that omnibus allegations lacking specific dates or overt acts constitute an abuse of process, shielding elderly litigants from retaliatory criminal proceedings.

Under Section 195 of the CrPC, a police FIR alleging obstruction of a public servant is invalid unless the servant files a written complaint; the Gujarat High Court therefore quashed the FIR. The ruling bars cognizance of such offences without the statutory complaint, protecting accused persons from unwarranted prosecution.

Gujarat High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 306 and 107 IPC, ruling that mere harassment without a proximate act or specific intent cannot constitute abetment of suicide. This narrows the scope of criminal liability for alleged harassers and safeguards individuals from frivolous suicide-abetment prosecutions.

The Meghalaya High Court ruled that a POCSO FIR may be quashed where the parties are in a consensual marriage and the alleged victim has given informed consent, invoking Section 528 CrPC’s discretionary power. The decision narrows POCSO’s reach in adolescent marriages and guides prosecutors on when FIRs can be dismissed.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that a dispute over unpaid industrial oil supplies is a civil matter, so the criminal case under Sections 420 and 406 IPC was dismissed. This clarifies that commercial payment conflicts cannot be pursued as cheating or criminal breach of trust without clear criminal intent, safeguarding businesses from misuse of criminal law.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court rejected a petition to quash an extortion FIR, ruling that a private settlement cannot extinguish liability for non-compoundable offences under Section 528 of the BNSS. This clarifies that compromise is ineffective where the offence is non-compoundable, affecting victims and accused in similar cases.

The Supreme Court overturned Karnataka High Court orders that had quashed six corruption-related FIRs, holding that Section 482 CrPC authorises only a prima-facie check and cannot be used to conduct a mini-trial before investigation. This limits High Courts’ power to dismiss FIRs and safeguards the investigative process for accused officials.

Bombay High Court rules that once a charge-sheet is filed, an FIR cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC merely on suspicion or weak evidence. The trial court must evaluate witness testimony and evidence, shifting the burden to the accused to demonstrate overwhelming proof of innocence. This ruling reinforces the primacy of trial proceedings in criminal cases.