Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Manjunath @ Manjunath Bhajantri, son of Hanamantappa Bhajantri – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Md. Asghar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State, Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the Union of India and Mr. Amit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the informant-respondent No. 4.
2. Initially this writ petition was filed for quashing of the Zero FIR dated 03.09.2022 registered with North Avenue Police Station, New Delhi. Subsequently, the said FIR was transferred to Kunda Police Station in the district of Deoghar, which was registered as Kunda P.S. Case No. 134 of 2023, which was challenged by way of I.A. No. 7321 of 2023 and after hearing the parties, the said I.A. was allowed by order dated 16.08.2023, as such, the Kunda P.S. Case No. 134 of 2023 is also under challenge.
3. Pursuant to the above, Kunda P.S. Case No. 134 of 2023 has been registered alleging therein that the informant namely Dr. Nishikant Dubey, is Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) and also Chairman of Advisory Committee, Deoghar Airport. On 31.08.2022 at about 5:15 p.m. the informant went to the Deoghar Airport to take flight for Delhi Airport, and where he was accompanied by Manoj Tiwary, MLA and also
The court quashed the FIR due to lack of evidence against the petitioner, emphasizing that mere allegations without presence or intent do not constitute a valid case under the IPC or Official Secrets....
The court established that for offences under Section 188 IPC, a written complaint from the concerned public servant is mandatory, and without it, the FIRs cannot be maintained. Furthermore, the cour....
An FIR can be quashed if it does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, requiring sufficient evidence to sustain allegations of forgery and intimidation.
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 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....
A prior inquiry under Section 174 does not constitute an FIR, hence a second FIR can be registered based on new evidence, permitting continued investigation regardless of jurisdictional issues.
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
