Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Dwijesh Kant – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R. No. 04 of 2020, dated 23.07.2020 for the commission of offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act ( for short P.C. Act) and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code ( for short IPC), registered with State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (SV & ACB) at Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that a complaint was received in SV&ACB, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. against the petitioner. A preliminary inquiry was conducted and it was found that the petitioner was working as a Junior Engineer in the Irrigation and Public Health (I & PH) Department in the year 2016 in Shah Canal Project, Sub Division Thakurdwara, District Kangra, H.P. The informant was a registered contractor of the I&PH Department. He used to work on the Shah Canal Project. Jagjit Singh, Contractor obtained work of drains in village Falai, which was worth about Rs. 4.50 Lakhs (Rupees Four Lac Fifty Thousand). Jagjit Singh gave his Power of Attorney to the informant Nitin and Neeraj Kumar to look after the work. Th
The court held that allegations of bribery against a public servant, supported by video evidence, constitute a cognizable offence, and FIRs should not be quashed unless they are patently absurd or do....
The court upheld the validity of the FIR against the petitioners for vote buying, emphasizing that allegations of corruption warrant investigation despite claims of political vendetta.
High Courts should not quash FIRs in corruption cases at the investigation stage unless no cognizable offense is disclosed, allowing for thorough investigation.
A FIR initiates criminal proceedings without needing specific role attribution; sufficient evidence during investigation upholds its validity, especially in corruption cases.
The judgment established the principle that a second FIR for the same cause may not be permissible if the incidents could have been investigated in the first FIR, and that the abuse of power by the I....
(1) Preliminary inquiry or probe becomes indispensable in a complaint of acquisition of disproportionate assets not only to safeguard interest of accused public servant, if such complaint were lodged....
The court established that an FIR can only be quashed if the allegations do not constitute a prima facie case, affirming the validity of the FIR based on sufficient evidence of misappropriation and f....
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.
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
