High Court of Himachal Pradesh

K.C. Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

MANU/HP/0176/2016

18.04.2016

Criminal

Quelling FIR double jeopardy

“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 :