In Brief
A husband of a pathologist appealed against the High Court's decision to quash criminal proceedings against the directors of a company that sold her a faulty biochemistry analyser machine. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the cognizance based merely on an earlier related FIR being quashed. The second complaint rested on newly discovered facts—that original machine parts had been replaced with duplicate ones, evidenced by a service report—which were unknown when the first FIR was filed. The Court found prima facie material supported the charges and set aside the High Court's order, allowing the trial to proceed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.