Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Kapil Shankar – Appellant
Versus
Som Nath Alias Swami Nath Shankar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for setting aside the judgment dated 26.04.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Solan (Learned Revisional Court), vide which, the order daetd 28.06.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Solan (learned Trial Court) was upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant filed an application/complaint before the learned Trial Court under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for directing the Station House Officer (SHO) to investigate and register an FIR against the accused. It was asserted that the accused persons are the real uncles of the complainant. The property bearing Khata No. 464/441, Khasra No. 212, and Khata No. 465/442, Khasra No. 194, situated at Mohal Lower Bazar, Solan District, Solan, was the joint ancestral property of the accused and the complainant. A partition deed was executed and registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Solan, on 05.08.1
The court affirmed that disputes over property rights are civil in nature, and criminal proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are not warranted when a civil remedy is available.
The High Court retains inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent miscarriages of justice, even when revisional powers are restricted by Section 397(3).
High Courts can exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent injustice, even if alternate remedies are available.
The Revisional Court has the power to dismiss a complaint if it finds it deficient and lacking in evidence to support the allegations.
Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC do not permit quashing proceedings when prima facie evidence of a crime is present, mandating a trial to ascertain truth.
The court established that allegations of cheating must demonstrate fraudulent inducement, which was not present, allowing for the quashing of criminal proceedings.
The court affirmed that a petitioner lacks locus standi in criminal matters and that the allegations did not constitute a cognizable offence under IPC.
Revision under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. not maintainable against the revisionary order of the Sessions Judge - No grounds for exercise of inherent power by this Court unde....
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
