US Constitution Trumps Presidential Tariff Powers
28 Feb 2026
Non-Compliance with Court Summons Amounts to Contempt: Allahabad HC Issues Warrant Against HDFC Life Branch Head in Cheating Bail Case
02 Mar 2026
Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Dwijesh Kant – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
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
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.
Court upheld the FIR alleging bribery against a public servant, emphasizing the necessity of substantial evidence for prosecution, rejecting claims of mala fides and ensuring adherence to procedural ....
(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 power to quash a complaint/FIR under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and is an exception rather than an ordinary rule.
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 High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs are exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process, necessitating sufficient grounds warranting quashing.
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
Listen Article