Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Kunal Juneja – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 40 of 2022, dated 16.02.2022, registered at Police Station Shimla (West), District Shimla (HP), for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451 and 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and the consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they are arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant made a complaint to the police that he is running a workshop in the name of Rishikesh Car Care at Chakkar Shimla, which is engaged in servicing, dry cleaning, polishing, painting, and other mechanical works. The petitioner, Kunal Singh Juneja, purporting to be the owner of the vehicle bearing registration number PB-03AP-3880, got the vehicle serviced as per his choice. The total cost of the work was Rs.72,530, out of which the petitioner paid Rs.40,000 and promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs.32,530 within a day or two. The informant delivered the possession of the vehicl
The High Court reaffirmed the stringent standard for quashing FIRs, emphasizing that allegations must disclose a cognizable offence and be supported by prima facie evidence.
FIR not quashable where allegations of blocking judicial officer's residence and demanding bail prima facie show criminal trespass intent to intimidate; no mini-trial, accept FIR as true, especially ....
Quashing petition under SC/ST Act dismissed as FIR allegations of caste abuse at public place prima facie disclose offences; courts accept averments at face value without evidence appreciation, civil....
Courts may quash FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if the allegations do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the alleged offences; jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly.
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 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 an FIR alleging cognizable offences cannot be quashed merely based on claims of disability or false implication; the truth of allegations is to be assessed at trial.
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
