Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Harpreet Singh – Appellant
Versus
Kavita Chaudhary – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of proceedings pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-IV, Shimla, in a case titled Kavita Chaudhary Vs. Harpreet Singh. (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 made a complaint to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court asserting that she is a resident of Dimple Cottage, Chotta Shimla-2, H.P. Her husband had taken Dimple Cottage on lease through Lease Deed dated 24.5.2010. Physical possession of the Cottage was handed over to her husband on 1.6.2010. Gurpreet Singh is the Special Power of Attorney of Harpreet Singh. He was dealing with the property on behalf of Harpreet Singh. The complainant’s husband remained in possession since 24.5.2010. He carried out the necessary repairs in the building. Gurpreet Singh and Harpreet Singh started interfering with the enjoyment of the property. The complainant’s husband filed a civil suit, which was compromised on 26.3.2011. The defendant undertook not to int
The absence of a witness list in criminal proceedings is a curable irregularity and does not invalidate the issuance of summons if the Magistrate applies judicial mind to the evidence presented.
The acceptance of a final report does not prevent a Magistrate from taking cognizance of a complaint based on a protest petition if supported by sufficient evidence.
An order summoning an accused in a criminal case is not an interlocutory order and revision is maintainable. The Magistrate must apply his mind to the facts of the case and law governing the issue an....
A magistrate must apply mind and provide reasoning when taking cognizance of complaints; failure to do so allows for quashing of proceedings to prevent abuse of process.
Point of law : Whenever a Magistrate decides to refer a complaint to investigation by police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., he does not take cognizance, he awaits the filing of charge sheet and takes ....
(1) If once court of competent jurisdiction did not take cognizance of offences when a complaint was made and said order became final, another complaint on same allegations though filed by complainan....
The Magistrate must conduct an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. before issuing process against accused residing outside jurisdiction to prevent harassment through false complaints.
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
