TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Reverses Decision on Quashed Investigation: Allegations of Forged Documents Upheld</h1> <h3>C.P. Subhash Versus Inspector of Police Chennai & Ors.</h3> C.P. Subhash Versus Inspector of Police Chennai & Ors. - 2013 AIR 390, 2013 (1) SCR 545, 2013 (11) SCC 559, 2013 (2) JT 270, 2013 (2) SCALE 19 Issues involved: Quashing of FIR and ongoing investigation u/s 468 and 471 IPC based on allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents.Summary:1. The appeal arose from a judgment quashing FIR No.41/10 dated 25th March, 2010, registered for offences u/s 468 and 471 IPC, based on allegations of forged sale deeds. The High Court allowed the petition to quash the FIR and ongoing investigation. 2. The complainant, General Manager of SNP Ventures Pvt. Ltd., alleged that respondents, legal advisers/Senior Managers of GWL, used forged sale deeds to claim ownership of land. The Sub-Registrar confirmed the sale deeds were unrelated to GWL's claim.3. The High Court quashed the FIR citing that the allegations did not constitute an offence and the bar u/s 195 Cr.P.C. against taking cognizance without a court complaint. The appellant argued against interference in ongoing investigations.4. The legal position on quashing criminal proceedings during investigation was discussed, emphasizing the need for a strong factual foundation in the complaint to proceed with the case.5. The appellant's complaint detailed the alleged forgery and fabrication of documents by GWL representatives to make fraudulent claims over the land, urging for investigation and legal action.6. The Constitution Bench clarified that the bar u/s 195 Cr.P.C. applies only if the document forgery occurred while in court custody, which was not the case here.7. The High Court erred in quashing the FIR as the allegations constituted an offence and required investigation. The judgment was set aside, allowing the investigation to proceed without influence from this decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
