Though an affidavit per se is not part of investigation, we

916 votes

हत्या, बलात्कार, भ्रष्टाचार या समाज के विरुद्ध गंभीर अपराधों में केवल समझौते या शपथपत्र के आधार पर कार्यवाही समाप्त नहीं की जाती। मामले के तथ्यों और आरोपों की प्रकृति का विशेष महत्व होता है।यदि मामला समझौता योग्य प्रकृति का है, तो हाई कोर्ट में धारा 482 BNSS (पूर्व में धारा 482 CrPC) के तहत FIR/चार्जशीट निरस्तीकरण (Quashing) याचिका दाखिल की जा सकती है।

Advocate Servesh Mishra LawRato

653 votes

the chargesheet had to be filed within 90 days or else the accused will be discharged after that and the police will pur the criminal law into motion then the names of the accused will be in the colum

Advocate Spiti Sarkar LawRato

652 votes

Based on the facts stated, if the High Court had specifically directed that no police report/charge sheet be filed pending further proceedings, the filing of a charge sheet despite such an interim order may require judicial scrutiny. The effect of the compromise and the exact wording of the High Court's order are crucial. If the charge sheet has been filed in apparent violation of the interim protection granted by the High Court, appropriate legal remedies may be available, including bringing the subsequent developments to the notice of the Court. A detailed examination of the FIR, compromise deed, High Court order, and charge sheet would be necessary before offering a conclusive opinion.

Advocate Rahul Kumar LawRato

817 votes

You are referencing a judicial observation where the High Court noted that while an affidavit is not inherently part of the investigation, if the informant’s own sworn statement undermines the core of the prosecution case, continuing the probe would be futile. This reasoning typically applies when the affidavit explicitly contradicts the First Information Report (FIR) or makes allegations that are inherently improbable, exaggerated, or malicious. The court essentially exercises its inherent or supervisory jurisdiction—often under Section 482 of the CrPC (or its Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 counterpart)—to quash the investigation or FIR. The rationale is that no useful purpose would be served by allowing law enforcement to continue when the informant’s own affidavit shows that no prima facie offence is made out, or that the complaint is motivated. This prevents abuse of process, wastage of judicial and police resources, and unnecessary harassment of the accused. However, the court will not quash merely because an affidavit exists; it must clearly demonstrate that the investigation has lost its legal foundation. The observation underscores a balance: investigation is ordinarily the police’s domain, but when the informant’s own admission in an affidavit demolishes the very basis of the allegations, judicial intervention becomes justified. Thus, the principle applies narrowly—only where the affidavit is unequivocal, voluntary, and fatal to the prosecution’s narrative.

Advocate Lalit Saxena LawRato

544 votes

This order is generally passed when the person filing the FIR (Informant/Complainant) has reached a compromise with the accused or has retracted his allegations. Based on the complainant's affidavit, the High Court can seek final relief under Section 482 to quash the FIR and all subsequent criminal proceedings. Under the principles of landmark cases like Gian Singh vs State of Punjab, if the crime is non-heinous or of a personal/family nature, the High Court immediately quashes the case after the complainant's stand.

Advocate Nadeem Ahmed LawRato