High Court quashed FIR against IOC officials in dispute over LPG dealership and alleged forgery, holding prosecution was ill-motivated based on refusal to accede to informant's request, citing clear mala fides.
FIR and investigation against petitioners are quashed; petition allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2673 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-383 Year-2016 Thana- KUDHNI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. K. D. Chatterji, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocate, For the State : Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP For the OP No. 2 : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate Mr. Prakritita Sharma, Advocate. ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER
counsel for the OP No.2 as well as learned APP.
asked for quashing of the FIR along with investigation concerning to them relating to Kurhani (Turki O.P.) PS Case No. 383/2016.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2673 of 2017(4) dt.10-05-2019 2/5
of swords in between two full brothers. Informant is the elder brother and one of the accused, namely, Ranjeet Kumar is his younger brother and Smt. Suman Kumari is the wife of Ranjeet Kumar, that means to say, Bhabho of the informant.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2673 of 2017(4) dt.10-05-2019 3/5
activity of Ranjeet Kumar and further, requesting not to allot the dealership to the aforesaid Ranjeet Kumar but, it has been alleged that as the dealership has been allotted to aforesaid Ranjeet Kumar, that being so, the informant apprehended it a theme of criminal conspiracy whereupon, apart from prosecuting Ranjeet Kumar and his wife, also implicated these petitioners.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2673 of 2017(4) dt.10-05-2019 4/5
“3. A perusal of the order of the High Court released on 21.05.2015 would indicate that the High Court has gone far beyond the contours of its power and jurisdiction Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a criminal proceeding, the extent of such jurisdiction having been dealt with by this Court in numerous pronouncements over the last half century. Time and again, it has been emphasized by this Court that the power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure would not permit the High Court to go into disputed questions of fact or to appreciate the defence of the accused. The power to interdict a criminal proceeding at the stage of investigation is even more rare. Broadly speaking, a criminal investigation, unless tainted by clear mala fides, should not be foreclosed by a Court of Law.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2673 of 2017(4) dt.10-05-2019 5/5
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)
perwez
U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the registration of IPC instance case against IOC officials is ill-motivated and tainted by mala fides warranting quashal.
Whether quashing the FIR at the investigation stage would nip the inquiry in the bud absent clear mala fides in the prosecution.
Whether the allegation of forgery regarding land documents falls beyond the scope of quashing an FIR under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tilly Gifford v. Michael Floyed EshwarFollowed¶7
(2018) 11 SCC 205 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 1 enactments
B.V. Sekhar Babu @ Bandi Vijaya Sekhar Babu
Gauri Shankar Sudhanshu
The State Of Bihar
Kanhaiya Lal
Aditya Kumar Trivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
