Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH
Kashmir Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fir for pradhan's alleged swachh bharat fund misappropriation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 16 , 17) |
| 2. administrative proceedings closed sans pradhan suspension. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. trial court violated bnss s.175 procedural safeguards. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. criminal proceedings independent of departmental inquiries. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. inherent powers quash firs abusing process. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. panchayat pradhan is public servant under bnss. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 7. bnss s.175(4) codifies public servant safeguards. (Para 40 , 41) |
| 8. magistrate omitted superior report and hearing. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 9. 'may' in bnss s.175(4) is mandatory. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 10. procedural non-compliance quashes fir and order. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
JUDGMENT :
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
1. Petitioner–Kashmir Singh has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’) for quashing of FIR No. 63/2025, dated 15.05.2025 (hereinafter referred to as ‘FIR in question’) registered under Sections 420 and 34
Magistrate must mandatorily comply with Section 175(4) BNSS safeguards—report from public servant's superior and consideration of servant's assertions—before ordering FIR under 175(3) against officia....
(1) Commission of offence by public servant in course of discharge of his official duty – Sub-section (4) of Section 175 is neither an independent / a standalone provision nor a proviso to sub-sectio....
Failure to comply with procedural safeguards in the registration of FIR against public servants, specifically ignoring the necessity of a report from a superior officer, renders the Magistrate's orde....
Public servants are not immune from prosecution for criminal acts committed outside the scope of their official duties, and FIR registration is mandatory when a cognizable offense is reported.
The court clarified that Section 175(4) of the BNSS is discretionary, not mandatory, allowing the Magistrate to independently decide on investigations without undue influence from prior orders.
The court emphasized the necessity of conducting a preliminary inquiry before proceeding with an FIR to prevent abuse of legal process in cases with potential ulterior motives.
Prospective accused lack locus standi to challenge an order directing F.I.R. registration before cognizance is taken, validating the inherent jurisdiction limitations as per Section 528 and Section 1....
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
