Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the FIR alleging use of defeat devices and related offences was liable to be quashed on the grounds of delay, disputed factual assertions, and the pendency of civil appeals arising from National Green Tribunal proceedings.
Analysis: The alleged discrepancy in the number of vehicles purchased and the complaint filed after delay raised disputed questions of fact, which could not be adjudicated in a petition to quash the FIR. Mere delay in lodging the complaint was not by itself a ground to terminate the criminal process. The pending civil appeals concerning the NGT order did not bar a private complainant from setting the criminal law in motion, because the NGT proceedings concerned broader environmental issues and did not determine the individual purchaser-specific allegations of misrepresentation and installation of defeat devices. The governing principles on quashing required restraint, and investigation could not be thwarted where the FIR disclosed allegations requiring factual inquiry.
Conclusion: The challenge to quashing of the FIR failed; investigation was permitted to continue.
Ratio Decidendi: An FIR cannot be quashed merely because it is alleged to be delayed or because connected civil or regulatory proceedings are pending, where the complaint raises disputed facts and discloses allegations warranting investigation.