Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Vipan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing FIR no. 47 of 2019, dated 03.04.2019, registered in Police Station Gagret, Una, H.P and criminal proceedings arising out of it.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant made a complaint to the police asserting that the present petitioner was posted as Bank Manager in Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Branch Office at DaulatpurChowk, District Una. He told the informant to take a loan to purchase a truck for Rs.17,90,000/-. The informant mortgaged his land and paid the margin money to purchase the truck. The petitioner, in connivance with Ravi Kumar Jaswal and Lalit Jaswal, obtained the signatures of the informant on various documents. The petitioner was not taken to any showroom. The amount of the truck loan was transferred to the accounts of Lalit and Ravi. Rs.4,08,000/- deposited in the informant’s account was also withdrawn. The informant got no truck, and his land was also mortgaged. The petitioner and co-accused threatened the informant that he and his family members would be killed in case the matter was reported to any person. The police register
The court held that allegations in the FIR constituted a cognizable offence, and the petition for quashing the FIR was dismissed.
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 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 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 court ruled that allegations in the FIR constituted a cognizable offence, and mere repayment of funds does not negate the wrongdoing.
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 held that allegations arising from a civil dispute cannot constitute a criminal offence, and continuation of such proceedings amounts to an abuse of the legal process.
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.
The court cannot assess the truthfulness of allegations in an FIR at the quashing stage; it must determine if the FIR discloses a prima facie case for proceeding.
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
