Back
VIKRAM NATH, K. V. VISWANATHAN
State of Arunachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Kamal Agarwal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vikram Nath, J.
Leave granted.
2. Both the above appeals arise out of the First Information Report1[FIR] registered as FIR Case No.227 of 2017 at Police Station Pasi Ghat, District Siang East, Arunachal Pradesh for offences under section 420/120B/34 Indian Penal Code, 18602[IPC] lodged by Mr. Anil Agarwal attorney holder for Mr. Okep Tayeng, the proprietor of M/s Shiv Bhandar. This FIR was registered against several named accused, details of which will be dealt with at a later stage and additional names surfaced during investigation.
3. Three of the accused namely Chandra Mohan Badaya and Respondent Nos.3 and 4 namely Shashi Natani and Rajesh Natani filed a petition for quashing the FIR before the Gauhati High Court registered as Criminal Petition No.91 of 2021. The said petition was dismissed by Gauhati High Court by judgment and order dated 24.06.2022. Aggrieved by the same, SLP (Crl.) No.7301 of 2022 has been filed by Chandra Mohan Badaya. Five other co-accused filed writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court also praying for quashing of the same FIR No.227 of 2017. The details of three petitions filed before the Rajasthan High Court are as follows:
| Accused | Wr |
Claim for transfer of property for land/building, would be a matter of evidence to be led and established in Court of law rather than police investigating the same and finding out.
(1) Ordinarily, an injured witness would not tell a lie as to actual assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that statement of such a witness is always correct or without an....
High Court u/s 482 CrPC cannot act as an investigating or appellate authority.
The court emphasized the importance of determining the jurisdiction for inquiry and trial of an offence based on the location of the primary consequence of the alleged acts, as per the provisions of ....
The main legal point established is that the allegations in the FIR warranted investigation, and the court rejected the petitioners' contentions regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction, the civil/....
Cheating and forgery – A bonafide criminal prosecution cannot be quashed at threshold.
(1) Revenue records are not documents of title – Questions of title can only be determined by a civil court of competent jurisdiction.(2) A civil dispute may metamorphose into a criminal dispute.
The court established that an FIR cannot be quashed solely on jurisdictional grounds if it discloses a cognizable offence, and that the police have a statutory duty to investigate such offences.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
