Case Name : S Khushboo vs Kanniammal & Anr Case Reference: (2010) 5 SCR 322 Case Number: Crl A No 913/2010 Court: Supreme Court Bench: 03 Coram: KG Balakrishnan, Deepak Verma, BS Chauhan (Author) Date: 28.04.2010
When criminal law machinery is set in motion, superior courts should not mechanically use either their inherent powers or writ jurisdiction to intervene with the process of investigation and trial.
However, judicial review can be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice to correct grave errors that have been committed by subordinate courts. — Pepsi Food Ltd vs Special Judicial Magistrate
In the exercise of its inherent powers, High Courts can quash criminal proceedings in exceptional cases. — State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal Two relevant guidelines are: 1. When allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even at their face value and accepted prima facie do not constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
When there is sufficient evidence against the accused which may establish the charge against such accused, the proceedings cannot be quashed.
Criminal Complaint or chargesheet can be quashed by superior courts in exceptional circumstances, such as when the allegations in a complaint do not support a prima facie case for an offence. — Medchl Chemicals & Pharma Ltd vs Biological E Ltd
Criminal proceedings can be quashed but such power is to be exercised sparingly and only when such an exercise is justified by the tests that have been specifically laid down. Superior courts may examine questions of fact when the use of criminal law machinery could be in the nature of an abuse of authority or when it could result in injustice. — Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd vs Mohd Sharaful Haque
A High Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction should not interfere with a genuine complaint but it should not hesitate to intervene in appropriate cases; one of the paramount duties of superior courts is to see that a person who is apparently innocent is not subject to prosecution and humiliation on the basis of a false and wholly untenable complaint — Shakson Belthissor vs State of Kerala
The IRWP was enacted to punish publishers and advertisers who knowingly disseminate materials that portray women in an indecent manner. This statute cannot be used where only reference is made to the incidence of pre-marital sex. The IRWP cannot be invoked against someone who cannot be described a an advertiser or publisher by any means.
IPC, Section 509 does not apply when the publication is in a written form.
IPC- Section 153A does not apply when the accused is not speaking on behalf of one group, and the content of the statement is not directed against any particular group.
For material to fall within the scope of IPC - Section 292 and to be considered ‘obscene’ it must be: 1. Lascivious (expressing or causing sexual desire); or 2. Appeals to the prurient interest (excessive interest in sexual matters); or 3. It has the effect of tending to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely to consume such content.
– Refer also: Pepsi Food Ltd vs Special Judicial Magistrate, AIR 1998 SC 128 State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 Guidelines for quashing criminal proceedings Medchl Chemicals & Pharma Ltd vs Biological E Ltd, AIR 2000 SC 1869 Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd vs Mohd Sharaful Haque, AIR 2005 SC 9 Shakson Belthissor vs State of Kerala, (2009) 14 SCC 466 Ranjit Udeshi vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881 Mere reference to sex by itself cannot be considered obscene within the meaning of IPC - Section 292. What is to be considered is whetehr a class of persons into whose hands the material / content falls would suffer in their moral outlook or become depraved by reading it or would have impure and lecherous thoughts aroused in their minds. Samaresh Bose vs Amal Mitra, AIR 1986 SC 967 In judging the question of obscenity, the judge should place themselves in the position of the author from that viewpoint, understand what the author seeks to convey
See also: [Constitution - Article 19](a) IPC- Section 153A IPC - Section 292 IPC, Section 500 IPC - Section 504 IPC - Section 505 IPC, Section 509 [CrPC, Section 199](b) CrPC - Section 482 IRWP - Section 3 IRWP - Section 4 IRWP - Section 6