Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Jitender Dhiman – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the FIR No. 109 of 2023, dated 9.12.2023, registered at Police Station, Kumarsain, District, Solan HP, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant made a complaint to the police asserting that the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager of Branch Office Shivan in H.P. State Cooperative Bank. Nine customers raised objections regarding the transactions in their loan accounts. The bank conducted a fact-finding inquiry and Inquiry Officer reported that the petitioner/accused had provided financial accommodation to the customers. The customer agreed to provide him with funds which he transferred for personal benefit. It has caused a loss of Rs.16,80,314/- to the bank. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation.
3. Being aggrieved from the registration of the FIR, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings. It was assert
The court ruled that allegations in the FIR constituted a cognizable offence, and mere repayment of funds does not negate the wrongdoing.
The court held that allegations in the FIR constituted a cognizable offence, and the petition for quashing the FIR was dismissed.
The court ruled that an FIR cannot be quashed based on allegations of mala fides if it discloses cognizable offences, emphasizing the necessity of a trial to assess the truth of the allegations.
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.
The court cannot quash an FIR based on allegations of mala fides or insufficient evidence; it must determine if the FIR discloses a cognizable offence.
The court upheld the FIR against the petitioner, ruling that sufficient allegations existed to constitute cognizable offences, and the truth of these allegations could not be evaluated at the quashin....
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.
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 misrepresentation in a land sale transaction constituted cheating under Section 318(4) of BNS, and the FIR could not be quashed as it disclosed a cognizable offence.
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
