Plea to Terminate 30 Weeks Pregnancy Dismissed, SC Talks About Right to Life of Child in Womb  ||  Supreme Court: Written Grounds of Arrest Must be Given to the Accused in UAPA Cases Too  ||  Supreme Court: Difference Between ‘Reasons of Arrest’ and ‘Grounds of Arrest’ Stated  ||  All HC: No Bar on Anticipa. Bail to Accused Booked u/s 376(3) IPC through UP Amend. to S. 438 CrPC  ||  NCDRC Cautioned by Supreme Court: Hierarchy of Judiciary Must Be Respected  ||  Supreme Court: Cannot Allow Wrong Doers to Make Profit Out of Their Own Wrongs  ||  AP HC: App. u/s 11(6) Can Only be Maintained if Parties Fail to Refer Dispute to Arbi. Even After Not  ||  Del. HC: Father Held Guilty of Repeatedly Raping Minor Daughter for 2 Years, Acquittal Reversed  ||  SC: Reconsideration Required of the Judgement That Brought Doctors Under Consumer Protection Act  ||  SC: Person Purchasing Prop. Knowing About Appeal Pendency Can’t Claim Restit. as Bona Fide Purchaser    

K.C. Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. - (High Court of Himachal Pradesh) (18 Apr 2016)

Quelling FIR double jeopardy

MANU/HP/0176/2016

Criminal

“Can recourse to Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure be taken as if it is a routine procedure, especially when the case is predominantly of a civil nature, is the question which falls for consideration in this petition?” asked Himachal Pradesh High Court, before ultimately replying, maybe.

In the instant case, Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR registered against him on the ground that the investigating agency had already investigate the matter and come to the conclusion that the complaint was predominantly of a civil nature, and no offence was made out.

The court skirted an outright answer to its question, opining instead that the Judicial Magistrate who had ordered registration of the FIR had done so in error. It reiterated that the police is required to preliminarily determine whether a cognisable offence is made out or not under Section 156 CrPC. The petition was allowed and FIR quashed after the court concluded that the complaint filed under Section 156 CrPC was not bona fide and was filed with the sole object of depriving Petitioner from commercial opportunities.

Relevant : Priyanka Srivastava and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others MANU/SC/0344/2015 International Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) and others v. Nimra Cerglass Technics Private Limited and another MANU/SC/1063/2015 Section 156 Code of Criminal Procedure Act

Tags : CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION   DOUBLE JEOPARDY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved