SATYEN VAIDYA
Mahinder Kumar @ Kalu – Appellant
Versus
State of H. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Satyen Vaidya, J.)
1. By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No.143 of 2020, dated 01.05.2020 under Sections 451, 323, 504, 506, 509, 269 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Chamba alongwith consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom.
2. It is averred in the petition that no prima facie case is made out from the bare reading of FIR No.143 of 2020. In Fact, FIR No. 143 of 2020 was nothing, but a counter-blast to FIR No. 140 of 2020 registered against respondents No. 2 and 3 on 30.4.2020 at the instance of petitioner No.1. It is further submitted that there is a pending civil litigation between the parties and respondent No.2 has reported a false case against petitioners with ulterior purposes.
3. Respondent No.1/State has filed reply and has contested the averments made in the petition being wrong and incorrect. It is submitted that the investigation was carried after registration of FIR No. 143 of 2020. Sufficient evidence was found against the petitioners and the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been submitted in the court of competent jurisdiction, where the petitioners are facing trial.
4. During the course of he
Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) 18 SCC 191
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal
CBI vs. Arvind Khanna (2019) 10 SCC 686
State of Telangana vs. Managipet (2019) 19 SCC 87
XYZ vs. State of Gujarat (2019) 10 SCC 337
Shafiya Khan alias Shakuntala Prajapati vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2022) 4 SCC 549
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.