Data Theft Case Advocate

FIR Quashing Lawyer in Gujarat | 9925002031 | Top Advocates Gujarat | Advocate Paresh M Modi

As a Top criminal lawyer in Gujarat Advocate Paresh M Modi, Suggest you to file the petition before the Hon’ble High Court for Quashing the FIR, In case of false allegations and in some circumstances, It may be filed before charge sheet or after charge sheet.

FIR May be Quash Like NDPS Act Case FIR, PMLA Act Case FIR, POCSO Act Case FIR, IPC Section FIR, PCPNDT Act FIR, Anti-corruption Case FIR, cyber Fraud Case FIR, Social Media Misuse Case FIR, Artificial Intelligence Technology Fraud FIR, Data Theft Case FIR, Bank Account Freeze Case FIR, Work from home Fraud Case FIR, domestic violence Case FIR, Dowry Act FIR, Bank fraud Case FIR

FIR Cancellation Case Lawyer Ahmedabad | 9925002031 | Advocate Paresh M Modi | FIR Related issues Advocate in Ahmedabad Gujarat

Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 was invoked in the proceedings and proceedings under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were instituted and a charge sheet was filed against the accused pursuant to the FIR. Application for quashing the FIR was made after the charge-sheet was filed against him and the Hon’ble High Court has inherent powers to prevent abuse of legal process. If the FIR takes the form of a charge-sheet after the investigation, the abuse of process due to the FIR becomes aggravating. In such circumstances the Hon’ble High Court has inherent powers to quash the FIR even after filing the charge sheet.

Judgement : Anand Kumar Mohatta vs State of ( Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home (SC) – 2018 (14) Scale 756.
Note: it is advisable to refer the original judgment, as well as original source of the said judgment before any type of understanding or use, Advocate Paresh M Modi is the Top Advocate for FIR Quashing in Gujarat.

FIR Quashing Advocate | Paresh M Modi | 9925002031

Advocate Paresh M Modi, based in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, is a renowned legal expert in handling FIR Quashing Petitions and FIR Quashing Cases across prominent High Courts, including the Gujarat High Court, Bombay High Court, and Delhi High Court. Known for his meticulous approach and in-depth knowledge of criminal law, Advocate Modi has successfully represented numerous clients in challenging unwarranted FIRs, providing them with essential legal recourse and protection from potential legal repercussions. His expertise covers various grounds for FIR quashing, such as false allegations, lack of evidence, and malicious intent, where he effectively argues for justice and fair trial rights. With a proven track record in FIR quashing matters, Advocate Paresh M Modi is trusted for his strategic litigation approach, ensuring his clients’ rights are upheld while helping them navigate complex legal processes. His commitment and high success rate make him a sought-after advocate for those seeking FIR quashing relief at a higher judiciary level.

FIR Quashing in India: A Comprehensive Overview

In India, First Information Report (FIR) quashing is a legal remedy where individuals, organizations, or other entities seek to annul or nullify an FIR registered against them. FIRs play a critical role in the criminal justice system, marking the start of an investigation. However, there are scenarios where the FIR may not be legally valid or is seen as a tool for harassment, prompting affected parties to seek its quashing through higher courts.

1. Reasons for FIR Quashing

The reasons for FIR quashing may vary based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Common reasons include the following:

1. Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Process: Sometimes, FIRs are filed out of malice, vengeance, or personal enmity. In such cases, the FIR might be considered a misuse of the legal process. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) established guidelines for quashing FIRs based on the abuse of legal processes, stating that the FIR can be quashed if it lacks substance or is motivated by ulterior motives. This case laid down several other specific grounds, which are widely relied upon.
2. Lack of Prima Facie Case: If the FIR fails to establish a prima facie case or does not reveal an offense, the courts may quash it. For instance, in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006), the Supreme Court noted that an FIR should disclose essential facts that make up the offense. If it fails to do so, it can be quashed.
3. Settlement Between Parties in Non-Compoundable Offenses: In offenses that are non-compoundable but are civil in nature, such as matrimonial disputes, the court may quash the FIR if the parties have settled amicably. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), the Supreme Court held that in cases of matrimonial disputes, the courts could quash the FIR based on a compromise between the parties, especially if the case did not involve public interest or heinous crimes.
4. Cases Involving Minor Irregularities or Mistakes: If the FIR is filed with minor irregularities that do not affect the substance of the case, it may be quashed. For instance, if the complainant lacks knowledge of the facts or the complaint lacks clarity, the FIR may be quashed to prevent unnecessary legal action.

2. Grounds for FIR Quashing

The following are grounds for quashing an FIR as laid down by the courts:

1. No Evidence to Support the Allegations: One of the primary grounds is the absence of evidence to support the allegations. If the FIR lacks corroborative evidence, it can be quashed to prevent unnecessary harassment. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977), the Supreme Court emphasized that the power to quash is necessary to prevent abuse of legal proceedings where there is no evidence against the accused.
2. FIR Does Not Disclose a Cognizable Offense: If the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offense or fails to specify any offense, it may be quashed. The Bhajan Lal (1992) judgment listed this ground among the scenarios for FIR quashing, noting that if the allegations do not constitute a cognizable offense, the FIR may be dismissed.
3. Barred by Limitation: FIRs registered for offenses beyond the statute of limitations can also be quashed. For instance, in civil disputes that exceed the limitation period, the courts may quash the FIR to prevent misuse of legal procedures. The judgment in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan (1980) stressed that FIRs filed after the limitation period could be quashed on this ground.
4. Where Proceedings are Vexatious or Oppressive: FIRs filed solely to harass or oppress an individual fall within this ground for quashing. The Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) observed that FIRs filed for harassment should be quashed to protect individuals from oppressive or vexatious proceedings.
5. Breach of Fundamental Rights: If a FIR violates an individual’s fundamental rights, such as the right to personal liberty or freedom of speech, it may be quashed. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court ruled that FIRs filed under Section 66A of the IT Act, which infringed upon freedom of speech, were unconstitutional and hence quashed.

3. Best Arguments for FIR Quashing

When arguing for FIR quashing, the following points are often effective:

1. Lack of Mens Rea (Criminal Intent): An argument centered on the absence of criminal intent can be effective, especially if the offense requires mens rea as an essential element. For example, in economic offenses or civil disputes, counsel may argue that the intention to commit a crime is absent, as in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012).
2. The FIR is a Counterblast or Retaliatory Action: If the FIR appears to be retaliatory in nature, filed to settle personal scores, this argument can support quashing. The Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) acknowledged that false FIRs in matrimonial disputes are often filed as counterblasts, which can lead to their quashing.
3. Violation of Natural Justice or Fair Trial Rights: If the registration of a FIR infringes upon natural justice principles or the accused’s right to a fair trial, the court may quash it. For instance, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019), it was argued that the FIR was filed in violation of procedural fairness, prompting the court to quash it.
4. Settled Between the Parties: In cases where a settlement is reached between the parties, courts can quash the FIR, especially in non-compoundable cases that do not affect public interest. Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) emphasized that FIRs could be quashed in cases of compromise, particularly for disputes of a private nature.

4. Supreme Court and High Courts’ Observations on FIR Quashing

The Supreme Court and various High Courts have offered critical observations on FIR quashing, particularly highlighting the necessity for judicial restraint and discretion.

1. Supreme Court’s Guidelines in Bhajan Lal: The Supreme Court’s guidelines in Bhajan Lal (1992) remain fundamental. The judgment highlighted specific grounds and scenarios where quashing is appropriate, such as when the allegations are inherently improbable or there is an apparent abuse of process.
2. Bombay High Court Observations: The Bombay High Court has reiterated in various cases the importance of discretion in quashing FIRs. In Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Maharashtra (2001), the court emphasized that quashing is permissible only if continuing proceedings would serve no purpose or cause undue harassment.
3. Gujarat High Court’s Stance on Matrimonial and Civil Disputes: The Gujarat High Court in cases like Siddharth Ghanshyam Sheth v. State of Gujarat (2014) has noted that in civil and matrimonial disputes, quashing an FIR based on settlement is often justified. This stance aligns with the Supreme Court’s approach, where amicable settlements are encouraged in non-compoundable offenses that do not affect the public.

Importance of Judicial Discretion in Criminal Proceedings: The Supreme Court has consistently highlighted that FIR quashing must be exercised with caution. In Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi (2013), the Court ruled that while quashing may be granted in cases with amicable settlements, it should not be extended to heinous or public offenses.

Legal Words and its Definitions

FIR

A FIR (First Information Report) is the initial complaint recorded by the police when a cognizable offense is reported. It serves as the basis for the investigation and includes essential details of the alleged crime.

Quash

Quash refers to the legal process of nullifying or canceling an official proceeding, order, or complaint. Courts quash FIRs or orders if they lack merit or violate legal principles.

Quashing

Quashing is the act of invalidating a case, FIR, or legal order by the authority of a court, often based on lack of evidence, jurisdictional errors, or procedural irregularities.

Notice

A notice is a formal written communication informing an individual or entity about legal proceedings, obligations, or actions they need to address or comply with.

Warrant

A warrant is a legal authorization issued by a court allowing law enforcement to arrest, search, or detain a person, or seize property in connection with a case.

Bailable

Bailable offenses allow the accused to obtain bail as a matter of right, often for less severe crimes, upon fulfilling certain conditions set by the court.

Non-Bailable

Non-bailable offenses are more serious in nature, requiring judicial discretion for granting bail, with no automatic right for the accused to secure release.

Bail

Bail is the temporary release of an accused person awaiting trial, granted under certain conditions to ensure their appearance in court.

Anticipatory Bail

Anticipatory bail is a legal provision allowing an individual to seek bail in advance to avoid arrest when they anticipate being accused of a crime.

Regular Bail

Regular bail is granted to an accused person already in custody, ensuring their release pending trial or investigation.

Successive Bail

Successive bail refers to subsequent bail applications filed after an earlier one has been rejected, usually requiring new grounds or evidence.

Bail Application

A bail application is a formal request submitted to the court, seeking the release of an accused person on bail, explaining legal grounds for the plea.

Police Station

A police station is a designated location where law enforcement operates, handling complaints, investigations, and maintaining law and order in its jurisdiction.

Act

An act is a formal legislative statute passed by Parliament or a state assembly, providing rules, regulations, and procedures governing various matters.

Law

Law is the system of rules and guidelines established by society, enforced through institutions, to regulate conduct and ensure justice.

Jail

Jail is a facility for detaining individuals accused or convicted of crimes, serving as a correctional or pre-trial holding institution.

Magistrates

Magistrates are judicial officers responsible for administering justice in lower courts, handling minor cases, bail matters, and preliminary inquiries.

Judges

Judges preside over courts, interpreting laws, assessing evidence, and delivering judgments to ensure justice is served in legal disputes or cases.

Jamanat

Jamanat refers to bail or security deposited to ensure an accused person’s release from custody while guaranteeing their court appearances.

Accused

An accused is an individual formally charged or suspected of committing a crime, pending trial or investigation to establish guilt or innocence.

Seize

Seizing refers to the lawful confiscation or detention of property, goods, or evidence by authorities during an investigation or enforcement.

Crime

Crime is any act or omission punishable by law, considered harmful to individuals, society, or the state, including theft, fraud, and assault.

Criminal

A criminal is an individual convicted of violating laws, having committed acts deemed punishable under the legal system.

Case

A case is a legal dispute or criminal matter brought before a court for resolution or judgment based on presented evidence and arguments.

Expert

An expert is a person with specialized knowledge or skills in a particular field, often called upon for advice or testimony in legal matters.

Specialist

A specialist is someone highly skilled or knowledgeable in a specific area of law, offering expert legal counsel or representation.

Top

Top refers to being at the highest rank or level in a given field, often used to describe leading lawyers or advocates with a successful track record.

Best

Best signifies unparalleled quality or excellence, frequently used for legal professionals known for exceptional expertise and success.

Lawyers

Lawyers are legal professionals licensed to provide advice, represent clients in courts, and assist with legal matters.

Advocates

Advocates are licensed practitioners authorized to appear in courts and represent clients, providing legal advice and advocacy.

Law Firm

A law firm is a professional organization where lawyers or advocates collaborate to provide a wide range of legal services to clients.

Legal

Legal refers to anything permitted by or related to the law, including activities, advice, and services within the legal framework.

Services

Services encompass the assistance, representation, and expertise provided by legal professionals in resolving disputes and legal issues.

Court

A court is a judicial institution where legal disputes are resolved, and justice is administered under the law.

Offense

An offense is a punishable act violating criminal laws, ranging from minor violations to serious felonies.

Trial

A trial is a formal legal process in court where evidence is presented, and arguments are made to determine the outcome of a case.

Chief Judicial Magistrate

The Chief Judicial Magistrate handles significant criminal and civil cases within their jurisdiction at a subordinate level.

District Court

District Courts are the primary courts of law for civil and criminal cases, operating within a specific geographical area or district.

Sessions Court

Sessions Courts handle serious criminal offenses, including cases that require greater judicial discretion and sentencing.

High Court

High Courts are the highest judicial authorities in a state, with appellate and original jurisdiction over significant civil and criminal matters.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the apex judicial authority in India, handling constitutional matters and appeals against High Court judgments.

Gujarat

Gujarat is a state in western India, known for its legal framework addressing diverse cases, with Advocate Paresh M Modi offering top-notch legal services.

Airport

Airports often involve legal cases like customs violations or smuggling, requiring specialized lawyers for representation.

Cheque

A cheque is a negotiable instrument instructing a bank to pay a specific amount from an account holder’s funds to a designated party.

NI Act

The Negotiable Instruments Act governs financial instruments like cheques, including penalties for dishonor due to insufficient funds.

Cheque Return

Cheque return occurs when a bank declines to honor a cheque, often due to insufficient funds or signature mismatch.

Cheque Dishonour

Cheque dishonor happens when a cheque cannot be processed due to insufficient funds, stop payments, or other technical reasons.

Cheque Bounce

Cheque bounce refers to the non-fulfillment of a cheque’s payment, often leading to legal action under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

CBI

The Central Bureau of Investigation is India’s premier agency for investigating complex and high-profile cases.

ED

The Enforcement Directorate is tasked with investigating financial crimes, including money laundering and foreign exchange violations.

EOW

The Economic Offenses Wing specializes in addressing white-collar crimes, such as fraud, embezzlement, and corporate mismanagement.

POCSO

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act provides stringent measures to prevent and penalize crimes against children.

SEBI

The Securities and Exchange Board of India regulates the securities market, ensuring transparency and investor protection.

DRI

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence investigates customs-related offenses, including smuggling and tax evasion.

ACB

The Anti-Corruption Bureau addresses corruption cases involving public officials, ensuring integrity in public services.

PMLA

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act aims to combat money laundering by attaching properties and prosecuting offenders.

CVC

The Central Vigilance Commission oversees vigilance matters, ensuring transparency and accountability in public administration.

Conclusion

FIR quashing in India is a crucial tool that balances individual rights and the legal process. The courts, through a series of landmark judgments, have laid down comprehensive grounds for quashing an FIR and have empowered individuals to prevent unwarranted legal actions. At the same time, FIR quashing is exercised with restraint to maintain public order, protect fundamental rights, and uphold justice.

IN GUJARATI LANGUAGE

FIR રદ કરવા માટે જાણીતા વકીલ અમદાવાદ  | 9925002031 । ગુજરાતના ટોચના ફોજદારી વકીલ | Advocate Paresh M Modi

ગુજરાતના ટોચના ફોજદારી વકીલ તરીકે એડવોકેટ પરેશ એમ મોદી, તમને એફઆઈઆર રદ કરવા માટે માનનીય ગુજરાત હાઈકોર્ટ સમક્ષ પિટિશન દાખલ કરવાનું સૂચન કરે છે, ખોટા આરોપોના કિસ્સામાં અને અમુક સંજોગોમાં, તે ચાર્જશીટ પહેલાં અથવા ચાર્જશીટ પછી દાખલ થઈ શકે છે.

કોંસ્ટીટ્યુશન ઓફ ઈંડીયા, 1950 ના અનુચ્છેદ 136 ને આ કાર્યવાહી માં લાગુ પાડવામાં આવ્યો હતો અને ક્રીમીનલ પ્રોસીજર કોડ, 1973 ની કલમ 482 હેઠળની કાર્યવાહી કરવામાં આવી હતી અને એફઆઈઆર ના અનુસંધાને આરોપીઓ વિરુધ્ધમાં ચાર્જ શીટ ફાઈલ કરવામાં આવેલ હતી, તેની સામે ચાર્જશીટ ફાઈલ કર્યા પછી એફઆઈઆર ને રદ કરવા માટેની અરજી કરવામાં આવી હતી અને કાયદાકીય પ્રોસીજરનો દુરુપ્યોગ ન થાય તે માટે ઓનરેબલ હાઈકોર્ટને અંતર્ગત સત્તાઓ છે, જો તપાસ પછી એફઆઈઆર ચાર્જ્શીટનૂ સ્વરૂપ ધારણ કરે તો એફઆઈઆરને કારણે કાર્યવાહીનો દૂરૂપ્યોગ ત્રાસ રૂપ બને છે. આવા સંજોગોમાં ચાર્જશીટ ફાઈલ કર્યા પછી પણ એફઆઈઆરને રદ કરવાની ઓનરેબલ હાઈકોર્ટને અંતર્ગત સતાઓ એટલે કે સહજ રીતની સત્તાઓ છે.

Judgement : Anand Kumarv Mohatta vs State of ( Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home (SC) – 2018 (14) Scale 756.

Note: it is advisable to refer the original judgment, as well as original source of the said judgment before any type of understanding or use

એફ.આઈ.આર. ક્વોશિંગ એડવોકેટ । પરેશ એમ મોદી । 9925002031

એડવોકેટ પરેશ એમ. મોદી, અમદાવાદ, ગુજરાતમાં સ્થિત, ગુજરાત હાઇકોર્ટ, બોમ્બે હાઇકોર્ટ અને દિલ્હી હાઇકોર્ટ માં FIR ક્વાશિંગ અરજી અને કેસોમાં પ્રખ્યાત કાનૂની નિષ્ણાંત છે. ફોજદારી કાયદામાં તેમના વિશિષ્ટ જ્ઞાન અને સમજણ માટે ઓળખાતા એડવોકેટ મોદીએ અસત્ય આરોપો, પુરાવાની ઉણપ અને દુર્ભાવના જેવા વિવિધ આધાર પર FIR ક્વાશિંગ માટે તેમના ક્લાયન્ટોને ન્યાય અને સંરક્ષણ પૂરૂં પાડ્યું છે. FIR ક્વાશિંગ સંબંધિત આ બાબતોમાં તેમના ઉચ્ચ સફળતા દર અને વ્યૂહાત્મક વલણના કારણે તેઓ માન્યતાપ્રાપ્ત છે. FIR ક્વાશિંગના કટોકટીના મામલાઓમાં તે પોતાના ક્લાયન્ટ્સના હિત અને અધિકારોને સચોટ રીતે રક્ષણ આપે છે અને જટિલ કાનૂની પ્રક્રિયાઓમાં તેમને માર્ગદર્શન આપે છે. ઉચ્ચ ન્યાયાલય સ્તરે FIR ક્વાશિંગ માટે ન્યાયિક રાહત માટે પાત્ર એવા નાગરિકો માટે એડવોકેટ પરેશ એમ. મોદી પ્રથમ પસંદગી બન્યા છે.

 ભારતમાં FIR રદ કરવી: સંપૂર્ણ વિગતવાર માહિતી

ભારતમાં પ્રથમ માહિતી રિપોર્ટ (FIR) રદ કરવું એ એક કાનૂની ઉપાય છે, જ્યાં વ્યક્તિ, સંસ્થા અથવા અન્ય સંસ્થાઓ તેમના વિરુદ્ધ નોંધાયેલી FIRને ખોટી કે બિનઆવશ્યક ઠરાવવાના પ્રયત્ન કરે છે. FIR રદ કરાવવાનો ઉદ્દેશ તે છે કે જ્યાં FIR કાનૂની માન્યતા વગર હોય, બિનજરૂરી હોઈ શકે છે અથવા ક્યારેક કોઈ વ્યકિતને હેરાન કરવા માટે ઉપયોગમાં લેવામાં આવે છે.

1. FIR રદ કરવાના કારણો

FIR રદ કરવાના કારણો દરેક કેસની ચોક્કસ પરિસ્થિતિઓ પર આધાર રાખે છે. સામાન્ય કારણો નીચે મુજબ છે:

ક. ખોટો કેસ અને કાનૂની પ્રક્રિયાનો દુરુપયોગ: કેટલીકવાર FIR દોષદ્રષ્ટિ અથવા બદલા લેવા માટે નોંધવામાં આવે છે. આવા કેસોમાં FIR કાનૂની પ્રક્રિયાનો દુરુપયોગ ગણાય છે. સુપ્રીમ કોર્ટના State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) કેસમાં આ પ્રકારની FIR રદ કરવા માટેના કેટલાક ગ્રાઉન્ડ્સ નક્કી કર્યા છે, જ્યાં FIR ખોટી હોય છે અથવા કોઈ નકામી ઉદ્દેશ્યથી નોંધવામાં આવી હોય.

ખ. પ્રાથમિક દ્રષ્ટિમાં કેસની રૂપરેખા ન દેખાવા: જો FIR કોઈ ગુનાની પ્રાથમિક રૂપરેખા દર્શાવતી નથી, તો કોર્ટ તેને રદ કરી શકે છે. Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) કેસમાં સુપ્રીમ કોર્ટે જણાવ્યું હતું કે FIR એ ગુનાની મૂળભૂત વિગતો દર્શાવવી જોઈએ. જો તે આ પ્રકારની વિગતો રજૂ કરતી નથી, તો તે રદ કરી શકાય છે.

ગ. નિર્વાહ્ય મામલાઓમાં સમાધાન: જ્યાં ગુના નાગરિક સ્વરૂપનો છે અને પક્ષો વચ્ચે સમાધાન થયો હોય, ત્યાં કોર્ટ FIR રદ કરી શકે છે. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) કેસમાં સુપ્રીમ કોર્ટે જણાવ્યું હતું કે લગ્નના વિવાદોમાં સમાધાન દ્વારા FIR રદ કરી શકાય છે, ખાસ કરીને જો કેસનો જાહેર હિત પર અસર ન પડે.

ઘ. નાની કાનુની અનિયમિતતા અથવા કાનૂની ભૂલો: જ્યાં FIRમાં નાની ભૂલો હોય અને તે કેસના તત્વોને અસર કરતી નથી, ત્યાં FIR રદ થઈ શકે છે.

2. FIR રદ કરવાના આધાર

FIR રદ કરવાના કેટલાક આધાર કોર્ટોએ નક્કી કર્યા છે:

ક. પુરાવાના અભાવ: FIRમાં પોષક પુરાવાના અભાવના કારણે તે રદ થવાની શક્યતા છે. State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) કેસમાં સુપ્રીમ કોર્ટે જણાવ્યું હતું કે જ્યારે આરોપ સામે કોઈ પુરાવો નથી ત્યારે FIR રદ કરવી જરૂરી છે.

ખ. ગુનો દર્શાવતા આધારની ઉણપ: જો FIRમાં ગુનો દર્શાવતો આધાર નથી કે કાનૂની રીતે યોગ્ય ગુનો દર્શાવતી નથી, તો તે રદ થઈ શકે છે. Bhajan Lal (1992) કેસમાં આ પ્રકારના આધારને જોર આપીને આ પ્રકારના FIR રદ કરી શકાય છે.

ગ. મર્યાદા સમયગાળાનો ઉલ્લંઘન: કાયદાની મર્યાદા પાર થયેલ ગુનાઓ માટે નોંધાયેલા FIRને પણ રદ કરી શકાય છે. S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan (1980) કેસમાં આ ઉલ્લેખ કરવામાં આવ્યો હતો.

ઘ. હેરાન કરવાના કારણો: કોર્ટોએ હેરાનગતિ માટે FIR દાખલ થયેલી હોય ત્યાં તે રદ કરી શકે છે. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) કેસમાં આ પ્રકારના દંડાત્મક પ્રક્રિયાઓને રદ કરવાની જરૂર છે.

3. FIR રદ કરવા માટે શ્રેષ્ઠ દલીલો

FIR રદ કરાવવા માટેની કેટલાક શ્રેષ્ઠ તર્કો:

ક. મેનસ રિયાનો અભાવ: ગુનાની મેનસ રિયા (આપરી ધ્યેય)નો અભાવ દર્શાવતી દલીલ ઉપયોગી સાબિત થાય છે. જેમ કે આર્થિક ગુનાઓમાં, વકીલ એવું દલીલ કરી શકે છે કે ગુનાનો ઇરાદો નથી.

ખ. બદલો લેવાના કારણો: જો FIR વળતર રૂપે નોંધવામાં આવી હોય તે દર્શાવવું મદદરૂપ થાય છે.

ગ. સમાધાન થવા પર: ખાસ કરીને નાગરિક વિવાદોમાં સમાધાન થાય ત્યાં કોર્ટ FIR રદ કરી શકે છે. Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) કેસમાં સુપ્રીમ કોર્ટે ઉલ્લેખ કર્યો હતો.

4. સુપ્રીમ કોર્ટ અને હાઈકોર્ટની FIR રદ કરવા બાબતે ટિપ્પણીઓ

ક. સુપ્રીમ કોર્ટના ભજનલાલ માર્ગદર્શકો: Bhajan Lal (1992) કેસના માર્ગદર્શકો FIR રદ કરવા માટે મહત્વપૂર્ણ છે.

ખ. બોમ્બે હાઈકોર્ટના અવલોકન: Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Maharashtra (2001) કેસમાં બોમ્બે હાઈકોર્ટે જણાવ્યું હતું કે FIR જ ત્યાં રદ થવી જોઈએ જ્યાં તે કોઈ હેતુ સાધતી નથી.

ગ. ગુજરાત હાઈકોર્ટના મતે: Siddharth Ghanshyam Sheth v. State of Gujarat (2014) કેસમાં ઉલ્લેખ કર્યો હતો.

સમાપ્તી

ભારતમાં FIR રદ કરાવવી એ કાનૂની રીતે વ્યક્તિના હિતની રક્ષા અને ન્યાયની જાળવણી માટે મહત્વપૂર્ણ છે. એડવોકેટ પરેશ એમ મોદી તમને તમારી આવી કાનુની લડતમાં તમોને માર્ગદર્શન આપે છે અને કોર્ટમાં મદદ કરે છે.

In Ahmedabad, Best Lawyer of Gujarat High Court, Advocate Paresh M Modi is the well-known Criminal and Land Revenue Lawyer among the Top Criminal Lawyers in Gujarat, for your Property case, cheque Bounce Case, Divorce Case, title Dispute Case, Property Disputes, Bail Matters, Maintenance Case, Domestic Violence Case, FIR Quashing petition, you may contact him, Call or WhatsApp now him on Mobile No. 9925002031 for book the Appointment. He is the Advocate in Ahmedabad and Lawyer in Ahmedabad