Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Vinod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegation of rape establishes a cognizable offense. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's claim of false allegations and abuse of process. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. arguments from both sides on consent and prosecution. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. judicial principles for quashing proceedings. (Para 8) |
| 5. limited inquiry powers under section 482 cr.p.c. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. judicial precedents regarding abuse of process. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 7. court's reliance on fir and documents for quashing. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 8. jurisdictional limitations in criminal proceedings. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 9. truthfulness of evidence matters resolved at trial. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 10. consent presumption under section 114a of the evidence act. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 11. high court's power to quash not available after charge sheet. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 12. dismissing the petition and implications of order. (Para 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The informant used to talk to the petitioner on his mobile phone. The informant complained that the petitioner had raped her. The police registered the F.I.R. No. 14/2020 dated 13.03.2020 at Women Police Station Bhiuli District Mandi, H.P. for the commission of an offence punishable under
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
