Back
KALYAN RAI SURANA
Birendra Kumar Jha S/O Sri Hari Nath Jha – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam Rep. By The PP – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami alongwith Mr. Bankim Sarma and Mr. Bhaskar Sarma, learned APP for the State respondent no.1 as well as Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
2. By filing this criminal petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceedings of PRC No. 2574/2022, arising out of Noonmati PS Case No. 265/2022 under sections 419/471/193/506 IPC read with sections 66 and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act for short).
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had extensively referred to the FIR dated 02.06.2022, lodged by the then Chief General Manager (HR) on behalf of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Guwahati Refinery. By extensively referring to the provisions under which the case was registered, it was submitted that if at all the allegations were true, the petitioner had merely impersonated a fake identity, but the ingredients of cheating by personation (sec.419 IPC), using as genuine a forged document (section 471 IPC), giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding (section 193 IPC), criminal intimidation (section
The power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where no cognizable offense is disclosed in the FIR.
The court emphasized that the inherent power of the High Court should not be used to stifle a legitimate prosecution and that the question of mala fides is not relevant if the complaint is correct an....
Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process, and allegations must disclose a cognizable offence for proceedings to continue.
The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, and the courts have a limited jurisdiction to consider whether there is sufficient material to proceed further against the accused.
The court held that an FIR cannot be quashed if it discloses cognizable offences, and allegations of mala fide do not suffice for quashing proceedings.
Impersonation on social media without evidence of deception or wrongful gain does not constitute cheating under IPC or IT Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific allegations justifying investigation, the caution against interfering with ongoing investigations, and the need for....
The court held that allegations in the FIR disclosed a prima facie case under Section 170 IPC, and quashing was not warranted at this 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
