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>Court denies petitions to quash FIR and transfer investigation. Interim relief extended.</h1> <h3>Amrutbhai Hemabhai Patel Versus State of Gujarat</h3> The court rejected all three petitions. The requests to quash the FIR in Special Criminal Application Nos. 1157 and 1283 of 2012 were not entertained, and ... - Issues Involved:1. Quashing of FIR in Special Criminal Application Nos. 1157 and 1283 of 2012.2. Transfer of investigation in Special Criminal Application No. 1535 of 2012.Summary:Issue 1: Quashing of FIR in Special Criminal Application Nos. 1157 and 1283 of 2012The petitions under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Art. 226 of the Constitution of India were filed to quash the FIR registered as C.R. No. 1-86 of 2012 at Patan Taluka Police Station. The accused in these petitions claimed that the complaint was an abuse of process and that the allegations did not constitute any offense under the IPC sections mentioned. They argued that the sale deed was executed in good faith and that the complaint was filed after a gross delay, converting a civil dispute into a criminal case.The court noted that the allegations involved forgery and fabrication of documents, including a Power of Attorney, and the sale of ancestral land. The court emphasized that it should not interfere with the investigation at this stage, as it would stifle the investigation. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various decisions were considered, highlighting that judicial intervention at the threshold of the legal process is detrimental to public interest and that the High Court should refrain from quashing proceedings unless the complaint on its face does not constitute any offense.The court observed that the material available did not justify terminating the investigation at this stage. The court also noted that the investigation had not yet collected specimen signatures to verify the authenticity of the Power of Attorney. Therefore, the petitions to quash the FIR were rejected.Issue 2: Transfer of investigation in Special Criminal Application No. 1535 of 2012The complainant filed a petition seeking the transfer of the investigation to a higher authority not below the rank of District Superintendent of Police. The court noted that the complaint was lodged on 8-4-2012, and the petitions to quash the FIR were filed soon after, leaving little time for any substantial investigation to be conducted. The court found no substantial grounds or tangible allegations against the investigation process to justify transferring the investigation. Consequently, the request for transferring the investigation was deemed premature and was rejected.Conclusion:The court rejected all three petitions. The requests to quash the FIR in Special Criminal Application Nos. 1157 and 1283 of 2012 were not entertained, and the request to transfer the investigation in Special Criminal Application No. 1535 of 2012 was also rejected. The interim relief was extended till 11-10-2013 to enable the petitioners to approach the Apex Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
