Quashing of a proceeding

Usually, after the filing of the charge sheet, instead of trying for quashing of the charge sheet under S. 482 of Cr.P.C., it is advisable to try for discharge under S. 227 or S. 239 of Cr.P.C. (as the case may be) if it is felt that sufficient evidence is not available for prosecution on the basis of the merits of the case. If the trial court does not discharge, it may be challenged under S. 482 Cr.P.C. in appropriate cases.

Filing a petition for quashing of charge sheet before the High Court under S. 482 Cr.P.C. may be preferable generally only when there is lack of competency or lack of jurisdiction of the trial court to try the case or when there is violation of some mandatory provision of law or when there is a specific bar on the taking of cognizance (for example, when the sanction for prosecution required the law has not been taken), or when the charge sheet on the face of it (i.e., without going into details of the evidence) does not make out any offence. In other cases, the High Court may not, generally speaking, entertain a petition for quashing of charge sheet, and instead application for discharge would be preferable.

For judgments on quashing of charge sheet, you may see the following judgments:

(1) Dr. Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar, (1977) 1 SCC 505 : AIR 1977 SC 1754 : 1977 Cri LJ 1146.

(2) Nagawwa v. V.S. Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736 : AIR 1976 SC 1947 : 1976 Cri LJ 1533.

(3) Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., (2000) 3 SCC 269 : AIR 2000 SC 1869 : 2000 Cri LJ 1487.