In India, all criminal cases proceeds by assuming that the FIR contains gospel truth and if any offence is disclosed by the FIR, then the case cannot be quashed. The accused has to undergo the trial irrespective of his innocence.
There are many judgments on S.482CrPC, which says, that a case could be quashed when there is no offense disclosed by the FIR. But I fail to understand that when a person files a FIR with an ulterior motive, and he get hand-in-glove with the police, what alternatives are left with the innocent accused? Can that FIR be put on the same pedestal as the other complaints? Shouldn't there be a mechanism to segregate such malicious complaints from those true ones? Should he simply succumb to the torture of the trial for 3-4years for that false case until the trial judge acquits him?
Why is there no special provision for such cases? If the accused can actually make his case stand out and show that he is innocent and the complainant has lodged the case with mala-fide intentions to wreck vengeance on the accused and for taking revenge, then shouldn’t he be given liberty to come out of the case instantaneously? Why is he forced to suffer for years till he looses all his faith in the law and the judiciary?
To me it seems, the courts have developed a procedure so that the “Judicial Shops” can continue to run and thousands of those who are feeding on the mercy of these shops like lawyers, judges, court staff etc, can continue to make an earning. But for a democratic country like ours and in the era of globalization, can we leave an individual to strive due to personal benefits?
PS: These are my personal views. These are not targeted to any individual but depict the scenario of the present judicial system in India. This post is only to engage learned members of this forum to come up with their views so that pros-and-cons of this aspect can be articulated.
//peace
/Saurabh..V
