In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India held that an accused person’s criminal antecedents cannot be the sole consideration for declining to quash criminal proceedings. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala.
The case, Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., involved an accused who was facing charges under Sections 395, 504, 506, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused approached the Supreme Court after the Allahabad High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings against him.
The Supreme Court, while examining the allegations made in the FIR, observed that the entire case appeared to be concocted and fabricated. It further noted that the FIR was lodged after a considerable delay of more than one year, without disclosing the date and time of the alleged incident.
The Additional Advocate General representing the State argued that considering the accused’s criminal antecedents, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that an accused has the right to assert that even with a history of bad antecedents, if the FIR fails to disclose the commission of any offense or if the case falls within the parameters laid down by the Court in the case of Bhajan Lal, the criminal case should not be quashed solely on the ground of being a history-sheeter.
The Court acknowledged that the initiation of prosecution has adverse and harsh consequences for the accused. While the State has a duty to ensure that no crime goes unpunished, it also has a duty to prevent unnecessary harassment of its citizens. The Court stressed the need to strike a balance between law enforcement and protecting citizens from injustice and harassment.
The Supreme Court noted that delay in registering an FIR, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing the FIR. However, if there are other attending circumstances that render the case inherently improbable, the delay may become a valid ground for quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings.
The Court further emphasized that when an accused seeks the quashing of FIR or criminal proceedings on the ground that they are manifestly frivolous, vexatious, or instituted with ulterior motives, the Court has a duty to carefully examine the FIR and consider all attending circumstances. The Court must not restrict itself to the averments made in the FIR alone but should also take into account the overall circumstances leading to the registration of the case and the materials collected during the investigation.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused in the Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. case. The ruling establishes that an accused’s criminal antecedents alone cannot be the decisive factor in declining to quash criminal proceedings. The Court underscored the importance of a balanced approach that upholds the rights of both the accused and the protection of citizens from unjust harassment.
Written by Shriya Ayalasomayajula, College Name : Nyaya Vidya Parishad, Intern At Legal Vidhiya
