Back
DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Jatinder Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of assault and theft by petitioners. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contention on limitation affecting jurisdiction. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. limitation bars cognizance post time limit. (Para 7) |
| 4. delays in investigation affect legitimacy. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. fir quashed due to unexplained delay. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Deepak Manchanda, J. (Oral)
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Seeking quashing of FIR No.113 dated 12.5.2016, under Section 324 , 323, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Faridkot, District Faridkot and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR qua the petitioners.
2. As per the alleged FIR, the petitioners assaulted complainant-respondent No.2, as petitioner No.1 was allegedly asking him to vacate the shop forcefully and upon a refusal made by respondent No.2, petitioner No.1 started vandalizing his goods kept inside the shop also took around Rs.46,000-47,000/- from his cash box. When respondent No.2 objected to the same, petitioner No.1 grabbed him by his neck and petitioners No.2 and 3 along with two other unknown persons entered the shop and gave beatings to him. Petitioner No.2 gave a kirch blow on his right side of shoulde
Delay beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. without filing a condonation petition under Section 473 Cr.P.C. bars taking cognizance of offences punishable with imprisonment....
The Court cannot quash an FIR based solely on delay and can consider medical reports as evidence in determining the seriousness of injuries.
The court reaffirmed that delays in filing an FIR do not automatically justify quashing it, especially when there is substantial evidence of injury and wrongdoing.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to quash an FIR should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, as per the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.
Power under Section 473 of Cr.P.C to condone the delay was not exercised. The cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate overlooking the interdiction under Section 468 of Cr.P.C can under no circumst....
FIR quashed due to failure to file final report within one-year limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. for petty offences.
It would be considered that process has been initiated within time, hence, proceedings cannot be said to be time barred.
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
