Disposed

Bl Kanwar v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Jul 2021CRMMO/338/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Shimla disposed of a petition for quashing an FIR under Section 482 CrPC. The Court held that since the investigation was concluded and a cancellation report was filed in the competent court where the offence (committed in Delhi) needed to be tried, no order could be passed in this Court at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; no order at this stage in the High Court. Direction to lower court to act on cancellation report within 8 weeks.

Bl Kanwar Vs State of Hp — Corruption | Himachal Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

CrMMO No. 338 of 2018 Decided on: July 8, 2021

¶3

__________________________________________ B.L. Kanwar Versus	_____________________ ………..Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh and others	….Respondents
__________________________________________ Coram:	_____________________

¶4

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶6

For the Petitioner	: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Adv	ocate.
For the Respondents	: Mr. Sudhir Bhatnag Arvind Sharma,	ar and Additi	Mr. onal
	Advocates General	with	Mr.
	Kunal Thakur, Depu General.	ty Advo	cate

¶7

THROUGH VIDEO-CONFERENCING

¶8

_______________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

¶9

By way of instant petition filed under S.482 CrPC,

¶10

prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 3, dated 1.1.1999, under Ss. 409, 420, 467, 471 and 120B IPC and S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station Boileauganj, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

¶11

Reply filed by respondent No. 1 reveals that the investigating agency after having completed investigation has already submitted cancellation report before the competent Court of law. Reply filed by respondent No.1 further reveals

¶12

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

¶14

that prior to filing cancellation report, police had presented challan under S.173 CrPC in the competent court of law, but learned Special Judge (Forests) Shimla vide order 25.7.2011, ordered that since no offence was committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and acceptance or rejection of cancellation report under S.173 CrPC in an exercise of power relatabale to the jurisdiction of the court, no order can be passed except return of said case to the State for presenting the same in the competent Court of law.

¶15

Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to aforesaid reply filed on behalf of respondent State and order dated25.7.2011 passed by competent court submits that since cancellation report already stands filed before competent Court of law, prayer made in the instant petition cannot be accepted.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, especially order dated 25.7.2011 passed by learned Special Judge (Forest) Shimla, this court finds that since the offence in question was committed in Delhi, as such, investigating agency has filed cancellation report in the FIR sought to be quashed, in

¶17

¶18

the competent court of law and as such, no orders at this stage can be passed, qua prayer made in the instant petition.

¶19

Consequently, in view of above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to court below to pass appropriate orders on the cancellation report filed by respondent-State, if not already passed, expeditiously, preferably, preferably within a period of eight weeks. Needless to say, court below while rejecting /accepting the cancellation report shall afford an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the parties undertake to cause presence of complainant as well as accused before learned Court below on 31.7. 2021, enabling it to do the needful well within stipulated time.

¶20

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications. Interim order(s), if any, stand vacated.

¶21

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶22

July 8, 2021 (vikrant)/Himani

Bl Kanwar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bl Kanwar v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ishwar Dutt Sharma Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Rangila Ram Vs State of Hp

Subhas Kayastha Vs State of Hp

Mohar Singh Vs Hrtc and Ors.

Akhilesh Jain Vs Food Corporation of India

Hari Singh Vs State of Hp and Others