CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Abhinandan Jamwal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 28 August 2020 · Citation: (2020) 08 SHI CK 0379

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anoop Chitkara, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 173, 482 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
CR.MMO No. 704 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 338 words

Anoop Chitkara, J

1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No.212/2015, dated 4.11.2015, under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. and further for quashing the charge dated 7.8.2019, framed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra in Case No.32 of 2016, titled as State of H.P. vs. Abhinandan Jamwal.

2.

The State has filed reply to the petition, in which, they have specifically mentioned that the petitioner has filed a similar petition in this Court being Cr.MMO No.376 of 2016. Although, the State has not placed on record the copy of the said order, but the Court Master of this Court has taken out a print out of the same, paragraph No.4 of which, reads as under:-

"Above all, the Investigating Agency, now has filed report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., against the accused-petitioner. The matter, as such, is under consideration before the competent Court. The petition, at this stage, therefore, is liable to be dismissed of course with liberty reserved to the accused-petitioner to raise all points before the learned trial Court at the stage of consideration of charge and in that event learned trial Judge shall consider the same in the light of record of the case, uninfluenced by the dismissal of present petition by this Court."

3.

Given above, the present petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 24.12.2019, is vacated. Be that as it may, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file appropriate petition confining only against framing of charges by challenging such order. It is clarified that in case the petitioner choses to file such petition before Sessions Court concerned or this Court, then such petition shall be disposed of without being influenced by this order and the filing of present petition shall not come in his way while filing fresh petition.

Pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of.