Back
CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Sah – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.—Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present application has been preferred for quashing of order taking cognizance dated 22.06.2009 passed in connection with Kotwali Complaint Case No. 2065(C) of 2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate - 1st Class, Bhagalpur, by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and others for the offfences under Section 323/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the ‘I.P.C.’).
3. A Notice was issued to opposite party no. 2/ complainant namely, Prabhash Chandra Sah, which was duly served upon him and was represented before this Court through advocate of his choice.
4. Precisely, the case of the complainant as it appears from the narration of his complaint, that he had been carrying out his business of fruits and coconuts for many years in his shop situated in Girdhari Sah Lane, Sujaganj, Bhagalpur, which was purchased by him with his three brothers through a registered sale deed in the year 1999 from Hirendra Prasad Sah and Mahendra Prasad Sah. It further appears from narration of complaint that petitioner being one of the influential and rich person of the
The court established that criminal proceedings should not be initiated for disputes that are essentially civil in nature, and that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked....
The court quashed criminal proceedings as the allegations did not disclose a cognizable offence and were deemed an abuse of process, emphasizing the distinction between civil and criminal disputes.
The court emphasized that civil disputes should not be disguised as criminal offences and quashed the proceedings due to lack of prima facie evidence and malafide intention.
Cheating and forgery – A bonafide criminal prosecution cannot be quashed at threshold.
The SC/ST Act should not be invoked for civil disputes, and criminal proceedings must not be misused for personal vendettas.
The court quashed the FIR for lacking material evidence against the petitioner, emphasizing that criminal proceedings cannot continue without sufficient allegations.
The court ruled that an FIR can only be quashed if the allegations do not constitute a cognizable offence, and the truthfulness of the allegations cannot be determined at the quashing stage.
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
