Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Parmjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fir alleges fraudulent hra via forged insertion. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. no evidence of misuse or criminal conspiracy. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. connivance inferred from rejected application awareness. (Para 6) |
| 4. quash fir if no prima facie offence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. disciplinary inquiry found no connivance proof. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. no dishonest intention for cheating forgery. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. fir quashed; proceedings set aside. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
1. By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.217 of 2023, dated 18.09.2023, under Sections 420, 468 and 120-B of IPC, registered at police Station, Sadar, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the competent court of law.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that FIR sought to be quashed came to be instituted against the petitioner, who at the relevant time was Sub-Inspector in the office of Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that though petitioner
FIR quashed as allegations fail to disclose prima facie cheating, forgery, or conspiracy; no dishonest inducement ab initio, no accused role in document alteration, supported by disciplinary closure ....
The court quashed the FIR under Section 420 IPC, finding no cognizable offence and highlighting the violation of natural justice principles in the registration process.
(1) Merely because on same set of facts with same allegations and averments earlier complaint is filed, there is no bar to lodge FIR with police station with same allegations and averments. However, ....
The court quashed the FIR against the petitioner, finding no evidence of sexual harassment or conspiracy, emphasizing the lack of mens rea and the frivolous nature of the allegations.
Point of Law : Dismissal of petition to Quash of FIR – Commission of cognizable offence and pendency of investigation – cannot be quashed.
(1) Registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge.(2) Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of....
A second FIR cannot be filed for the same offences due to the principles set forth in Section 162, CrPC, and the distinction between civil and criminal disputes is paramount in determining maintainab....
Point of law: The legal position on the issue of quashing of FIR or criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingl....
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
