Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

FIR Quashing Not Warranted in Partnership Dispute - Prima Facie Case Made Out: Supreme Copurt

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, in its judgment delivered on October 19, 2023, has held that the quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) is not warranted in a partnership dispute case. The court observed a “prima facie case” of theft, house trespass, and criminal intimidation, emphasizing that such cognizable offenses deserve proper investigation and legal proceedings.

The case, involving a family dispute over a partnership, arose from a complaint registered under Sections 457, 380, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court had previously quashed the FIR, a decision that was challenged and subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court.

Justice Vikram Nath, who authored the judgment, remarked, “The filing of the Small Causes Suit for eviction by M/s Sushma Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Impleading only respondent No.1 as the defendant speaks volumes about their collusion. What made Ambuj Rastogi believe that it was respondent No.1, who was alone the owner and in possession of the business being run from the shop in question, is nowhere reflected.”

The court further stated, “Theft committed in any building which is used as a human dwelling or for custody of property is punishable under section 380 of the IPC, and the sentence for a term which may extend to seven years and also be liable to fine. In the present case, there was breaking open of the locks of the premises wherein the property was stored for the purposes of theft, the punishment under section 457 of the IPC would extend to 14 years.”

The judgment also emphasized that any observations made in the order are only for deciding the issues raised and should not influence the ongoing investigation or trial, which should proceed independently based on the evidence presented.

This ruling underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring that cases involving alleged criminal activities receive a fair and thorough examination in accordance with the law, even in the context of civil disputes and partnerships.

Date of Decision: October 19, 2023

RUCHIR RASTOGI  vs PANKAJ RASTOGI  AND OTHERS ETC.

Similar News