Delhi HC: Meta Directed to Remove Obscene Photos of Minor Girl  ||  Cal. HC: To Convict Person u/s 304B of IPC, Conclusive Proof of Cruelty before Death Required  ||  Kerala HC: Can Admit Unregistered Sale Agreements as Evidence in Specific Performance Suits  ||  Cal. HC: Can’t Allow Rectification in DOB of Employee When Age Determined through Statutory Purpose  ||  Cal. HC: Can’t Generally Use Public Exchequer Funds with Official Liquidator for Welfare of Employee  ||  Delhi HC: Can’t Reject Plaint Due to Arbitration Clause Unless Application u/s 8 is Filed  ||  Telangana HC Strikes Down State Government’s Decision to Allot Land to Arbitration Centre  ||  Karnataka HC: Salvation of the Country Lies in Identifying Human Beings as a Human Being  ||  SC Allows Stone Crusher Operation Issue to be Raised in Kerala High Court  ||  SC Set to Hear Plea Challenging Policy of Uniform Pricing for Consular Passport and Visa Services    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved