Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
N.S.SHEKHAWAT
Saikiran Madhavan – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.T. Chandigarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N.S.Shekhawat, J.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case, offences under Sections 177, 465, 467, 468 and 471IPC have been added later on.
2. The Registry of this Court is directed to carry out the necessary corrections in the head note as well as prayer clause of the present petition and the offences under Sections 177, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC may be added in the present petition.
3. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the FIR No. 80 dated 13.05.2022 under Sections 120 and 120-B IPC (Sections 177, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC added later on), Police Station South Sector 34, Chandigarh, District Chandigarh (Annexure P-19) and all proceedings emanating therefrom primarily on the ground that the FIR was not only without jurisdiction but a civil dispute had been converted into a criminal offence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Richa Gupta, respondent No. 2/complainant was married to Adesh Gupta on 27.05.2017 at Baharpur Garden, Patiala. On the night intervening, 31.05.2019/01.06.2019 Master Advait Gupta/Aariket Madhavan (named so by the petitioners) w
The court emphasized that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for civil disputes, and jurisdiction is essential for the validity of an FIR.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the abuse of process of law and the exercise of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned FIR and all crimi....
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.
The court emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be misused for personal vendettas, requiring clear evidence of criminal intent for prosecution under IPC.
The mere existence of a civil dispute does not bar criminal proceedings where allegations disclose crimes, and the delay in filing a complaint does not negate the need for investigation.
The court established that civil disputes can coexist with criminal allegations, and the merits of such allegations must be determined through trial, not preemptively dismissed.
The court affirmed that civil disputes do not preclude the initiation of criminal proceedings based on allegations of forgery and that both can arise from the same facts independently.
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
