Back
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
Pawan Agarwal, S/o Late Shri Damodar Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
State of AP, Through Public Prosecutor – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
Heard Mr. Yellop Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. L Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
2. The petitioner, Pawan Agarwal, a resident of Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaypur, Rajasthan, has instituted this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for setting aside the implication of the petitioner in the F.I.R dated 23.11.2017, which resulted in the registration of FIR No. 0227/2017 in the Pasighat Police Station under Sections 420/420B/34 of IPC. Further prayer is made for setting aside the Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest (NBWA) dated 26.04.2021 issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat. Also the undated notice of appearance under Section 41A of Cr.P.C issued by the Investigating Officer, the reminders under Section 41A Cr.P.C dated 08.09.2021 and 28.08.2021 of the Investigating Officer are also sought to be set aside. It is stated that during the pendency of this petition, a further notice, the date of which the learned counsel for the petitioner is unaware of was issued, which also is sought to be set aside. Consequently, a prayer is also made for setting aside all
The court established that an FIR can disclose a cognizable offence even in the context of a civil dispute, and the investigating authority has the discretion to summon individuals for investigation ....
The court emphasized that the power to quash an FIR should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in a miscarriage of justice.
The court affirmed that serious fraud allegations necessitate custodial interrogation, and delay in FIR does not negate the urgency for investigation.
The court emphasized the limited scope of the court's interference under Article 226 and the obligation of police to register an FIR if a cognizable offence is disclosed.
A Police Officer making investigation may require attendance of “any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station ”, thereby, clearly and unequivocally setting limits to the jur....
The court emphasized that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly exercised and that the court should not interfere with the investigation unless no cognizable offence is disclosed. I....
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
