5 Recent Himachal Pradesh High Court Judgments in July 2018


1. Criminal P.C. 1973 - S. 482 - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 406, 420 & 120B - Quashing of FIR - Parties have already compromised the matter - Even if, the trial is allowed to be continued, as the parties have compromised the matter, there are bleak chances of conviction to secure the ends of justice; Jagpreet Singh v. State of H.P., 24-07-2018 Cr. MMO No. 207 of 2018

2. Criminal P.C. 1973 - S. 438 - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 420, 467, 468 & 471 - Bail Application petitioner has prepared forged jamabandi in order to obtain agricultural loan and has also made forged signatures of Tehsildar and concerned Patwari in the revenu record - after registration of the case, the petitioner has deposited some amount in the Bank towards his loan liability, which he has taken, as per the prosecution, after cheating the bank - the case is based upon the document and it is a fit case, where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour, as he is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice; Nand Ram v. State of H.P., 24-07-2018 Cr.MP(M) No.345 of 2018



3. Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 73 - Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved - the purpose of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act is to bring truth before the Court. Accordingly, the right of the party to bring truth before the Court cannot be taken away for mere technicalities. There is nothing on record to conclude that the application has been made with some ulterior motive. The plaintiff only wants to get handwriting of the defendant and his father compared with their admitted handwriting. This Court finds that if the prayer of the petitioner / plaintiff is allowed, the same will propagate the justice. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside by directing the defendant / respondent and his father / special attorney to give their handwritings in the learned Court below for comparison with the disputed entries in the documents Mark X, Y and Z to meet the ends of justice; Rajinder Singh Chawla v. Vivek Ahluwalia, 24-07-2018 CMPMO No. 416 of 2016

4. Penal Code, 1860 - S. 279, 337, 338 & 304A - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 184 - convicted and sentenced - Accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of accused, as a consequence of which, 2 persons lost their lives - accused is 55 years old person - more than 14 years have passed after the alleged incident and during this period, accused has also suffered trauma on account of pendency of case against him firstly before trial Court then before appellate court and now before High Court - accused can be granted benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; Dev Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 20-07-2018 Crl. R. No. 22 of 2009

5. Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 363, 366, 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - S. 4 - Criminal P.C. 1973 - S. 439 - Bail Application - petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than four years, he is resident of the place and not in a position to flee from justice, so this Court finds that it would not be apt to keep the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, as the evidence in the case in hand stands recorded by the learned Trial Court and now the case is listed for final arguments. Thus, the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour; Sushil Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr.MP(M) No. 862 of 2018 23-07-2018
Share: