Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Virender Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 05 of 2021, dated 19.01.2021, registered at Police Station Kupvi, District Shimla, H.P, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 39 (1)(a) of H.P. Excise Act, 2011 and Section 171E read with Section 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (in short ‘IPC’) and the consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR.
2. It has been asserted that the petitioners were falsely implicated in the FIR at the instance of the informant/respondent No. 2. The dispute involves the Panchayat election. The allegations in the FIR appear to be highly concocted and imaginary. The accused were not even present in the vehicle. The petitioners were major. They could possess two bottles each with a capacity of
A complaint cannot be quashed unless its allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence, and political motivations behind a complaint do not suffice to invalidate it.
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 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 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 emphasized that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly exercised and that the court should not interfere with the investigation unless no cognizable offence is disclosed. I....
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 emphasized that the determination of the truthfulness of allegations and sufficiency of evidence is within the domain of the trial court, and the exercise of inherent power to quash the FIR....
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