Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Rakesh Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 40/2024 dated 10.03.2024 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 171C, 171E and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) read with Sections 7 and 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act (in short ‘PC Act’) registered in Police Station Boileauganj, District Shimla and the consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informants-Sunil Awasthy and Bhuvneshwar Gaur sent a complaint to the Police Station asserting that Budget Session 2024 was organized from 15.02.2024 to 28.02.2024. An election for the seat of Rajya Sabha was held, and the budget was also passed during the session. The votes were cast in favour of the candidate for the seat of Rajya Sabha in a pre-planned conspiracy by misusing huge funds and other resources in a corrupt manner by purchasing votes under illegal influence. The allurements and resources were given against the elected Government by corrupt methods so that the budget could not be passed. There were big rumours/discussions in the different newspapers, electronic med
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.
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....
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....
Point of Law : Dismissal of petition to Quash of FIR – Commission of cognizable offence and pendency of investigation – cannot be quashed.
Point of Law : Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, High Court would have to proceed entirely on basis of allegations made in complaint or documents accompanying same per se....
High Courts should not quash FIRs in corruption cases at the investigation stage unless no cognizable offense is disclosed, allowing for thorough investigation.
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
