Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition to Quash FIR in Fake Email and Impersonation Case; Upholds Ongoing Investigation

109
0
Share:
national woman tax minor Evidence Copy maintenance police Landlord landlord claim Eviction ground Email Promotions judicial civil disclosure constable probate matrimonial relationship protection delhi cbse justice government automatic judiciary recovery government police view bail bail framing medical Rajya Sabha marriage matrimonial bank scale marriage bail wife decision national 67 copyright divorce plea under divorce fraud global documentsdocumentsvideo divorce sexual bail divorce validity sexual month friendlyfriendly suit disciplinary personal election case acquittal contract notice drug major day divorce teacher jewellers work honorable voluntary principle judgment Bail ordering wrestling remarks bail death criminal Cross- rape validity mother judicial wilful police daughters bail v eviction broad Examination wife land sexual marriage Delhi senior framing bail delhi guilty nationals bail

In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the quashing of FIR No. 171/2023, registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including 417/419/468/471/120B. The FIR involves allegations of creating fake email IDs and impersonation for filing false complaints against a government officer.

Justice Amit Sharma, presiding over the matter, observed, “The present case involves two versions – one of the petitioner and one of the complainant, which requires due investigation.” This observation came in light of the complexities surrounding the allegations against the petitioner, A.V. Prem Nath, who is accused of conspiring to file false complaints against a Special Secretary in the Delhi Government.

The court meticulously reviewed the background of the case, where the complainant alleged that he was induced by the petitioner under the promise of employment, leading to the creation of false documents and emails. The investigation so far has revealed significant evidence, including phone records and email correspondence, suggesting the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged crimes.

Highlighting the principles from various judicial precedents, the court stated, “The jurisdiction to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing an FIR has been the subject matter of various judicial precedents.” The court emphasized that such powers should be exercised sparingly and only when justifiably warranted, which was not found to be the case here.

In an interesting turn, the court also delved into the legality of evidence procurement. Justice Sharma noted, “Evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out if relevant.” This statement aligns with the court’s stance of prioritizing the relevance and significance of evidence over the means of its acquisition.

The decision to dismiss the petition for quashing the FIR underlines the court’s commitment to allowing the ongoing investigation to unfold. The court made it clear that its observations were not a comment on the merits of the case but rather a procedural stance, emphasizing the need for a thorough and fair investigation.

Date of Decision: 22 January, 2024

A.V. PREM NATH VS STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Download Judgment

Share: