CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness

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.

Latest Legal News