REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

ASHISH SHARMA Appellant

V/S

STATE OF H.P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

V.C. SHUKLA V. STATE THROUGH CBI [REFERRED TO]
JIT KUMAR V. THE STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
P.C. MOHAN V. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V. SHIV SHAMBU [REFERRED TO]
MADHU LIMAYE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. RAM GHANDERAGARWALA [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KAPOOR VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. HEMAREDDY ALIAS VEMAREDDY [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAN VS. KRISHNAVENI [REFERRED TO]
RAJATHI VS. C GANESAN [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER PRASAD VS. BASHIR [REFERRED TO]
FAKEERAPPA VS. KARNATKA CEMENT PIPE FACTORY [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH VERMA VS. PUNJAB STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
SHAKUNTALA DEVI VS. CHAMRU MAHTO [REFERRED TO]
SAT PRAKASH RANA VS. LIEUTENANT GOVERNER OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND KUMAR ADUKIA VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
SURENDER KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
State of Himachal Pradesh VS. Hirda Ram [REFERRED TO]
R.K. SAXENA VS. RAVINDER BALWANI [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing and setting aside the order dtd. 2/5/2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (CBI Court), Shimla (learned Revisional Court) and order dtd. 2/9/2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.5, Shimla, HP (learned Trial Court), vide which, the application for registration of the FIR for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 192, 197, 199, 200, 205, 406, 420, 120B, 468 to 471 etc. of Indian Penal Code (IPC) was dismissed

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner filed an application before the learned Trial Court for the registration of the FIR, asserting that an affidavit was filed by the respondent No. 3 before the Human Rights Commission falsely describing herself to be a Principal of MASDAV Public School. The matter was reported to the police, but no action was taken. Hence, it was prayed that an FIR be registered against the respondent no. 3.

(3.) Learned Trial Court held that the application did not disclose that the error in the designation was proved to be false, and the filing of the false affidavit led to the formation of an erroneous opinion touching the matter pending before the Human Rights Commission. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Click here to view full judgment.

ASHISH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address