Karnataka HC: Courts Should Ensure That Legal Procedures Are Not Abused in Order to Reduce Burden  ||  Utt. HC: Joining in Service Cannot Be Denied to Woman on The Ground of Her Pregnancy  ||  Kar. HC: Can’t Stretch Protection u/a 21 to Those Posing Threat to Nation’s Sovereignty & Integrity  ||  Delhi High Court: Can’t Stop Student From Entering Exam Hall Once Admit Card Issued  ||  Supreme Court Asks Medical Colleges Either to Pay Stipend or Not Have Internship  ||  Calcutta HC: No Penal Proceedings Attracted if Bona-Fide Mistake Occurs in Court Reporting  ||  Bombay HC: Can’t Entertain Application Increasing Valuation of Suit if Pecuniary Jurisdiction Lost  ||  Bom. HC: Information of Previous Bail Applications And Orders to Be Give in All Bail Applications  ||  Cal. HC: Clause in GCC Specifying App. of Officers For Arbitration Violative of S. 12(5) of A&C Act  ||  Cal HC: High Court Lacks Jurisd. When Application u/s 9A of A&C Act Filed Before Commercial Court    

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