District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

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