Asian Markets Plunge After Trump’s Tariff Announcement – Indian Stock Futures Also in Red

Image
Asian stock markets witnessed a sharp decline on Thursday following the announcement of new tariffs by US President Donald Trump. The decision to impose reciprocal tariffs on multiple countries, including India, has sent shockwaves through global financial markets. Major Indices Take a Hit Japan’s Nikkei 225 fell 2.69% Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index declined 1.80% South Korea’s KOSPI Index dropped 1.3% US stock market futures also tumbled, with Dow Jones Futures down by 1.78% India’s Stock Market Feels the Heat Gift Nifty Futures fell by 1.11%, indicating a weak opening for the Indian markets Market experts predict economic and financial strain due to the tariffs Banking and market expert Ajay Bagga warned that falling exports and declining margins could hurt India’s economy Safe-Haven Investments Surge With market uncertainty rising, investors are shifting towards: Gold Japanese Yen Swiss Franc Japanese Government Bonds Trump’s Tariff Impact o...
Post a Comment

Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Orders Due to Lack of Mandatory Affidavit Compliance


Delhi HC Sets Aside FIR Orders in Loan Dispute Case

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has quashed two trial court orders that directed the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs), citing the absence of a mandatory affidavit as required under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This decision reinforces the procedural necessity of affidavit submission when seeking an investigation by law enforcement.

Case Background: Loan Dispute Leading to FIR Request

The case pertains to a loan-related dispute involving petitioners Rajat Bhagat and Sarika Bhagat, who were accused of fraudulent activity. The complainant, Chetna Kalra, had approached the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Tis Hazari Courts, in 2016, seeking the registration of an FIR against them. The complaint invoked multiple provisions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including:

  • Section 420 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
  • Section 463 – Forgery
  • Section 468 – Forgery for the purpose of cheating
  • Section 470 – Use of a forged document as genuine
  • Section 471 – Fraudulent use of forged documents
  • Section 506 – Criminal intimidation
  • Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy
  • Section 34 – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention



Trial Court Orders and Petitioners' Legal Challenge

The ACMM directed the police to register an FIR on July 8, 2016, following the complainant’s request. However, Rajat Bhagat and Sarika Bhagat challenged this order, arguing that the complaint was procedurally defective as it was not supported by a duly sworn affidavit, which is mandatory under Section 156(3) CrPC.

When their revision petition was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Tis Hazari Courts, on February 21, 2017, the petitioners escalated the matter to the Delhi High Court, seeking to have both trial court orders quashed.

Delhi HC Cites Supreme Court Precedent on Affidavit Requirement

Justice Vikas Mahajan, presiding over the case, emphasized the significance of the affidavit requirement by referring to a 2015 Supreme Court judgment. The Supreme Court ruling mandated that any application filed under Section 156(3) CrPC must be accompanied by an affidavit, ensuring the complainant's accountability and preventing frivolous or malicious FIR requests.

The High Court underscored:

"It was obligatory for the complainant to support his application under Section 156(3) CrPC with an affidavit. The requirement is mandatory. In the case at hand, the application filed by the complainant was not supported by an affidavit. Therefore, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) committed an error in entertaining the said application and passing an order for registration of FIR."

Consequently, the High Court quashed the trial court orders and ruled that the ACMM had acted beyond its legal mandate in directing the FIR registration.

Arguments Presented by Both Sides

Petitioners' Arguments

Advocate Isha Kapoor, representing Rajat Bhagat and Sarika Bhagat, made the following legal submissions:

  • Non-compliance with procedural law – The ACMM’s order was unlawful since it failed to adhere to the affidavit requirement mandated by the Supreme Court.
  • Judicial precedent ignored – The trial courts did not consider the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court in 2015 regarding affidavit submission under Section 156(3) CrPC.
  • Unfair FIR registration – The lack of an affidavit raised serious concerns about the legitimacy of the complaint and the potential for misuse of criminal law provisions.

Respondent’s Counterarguments

The complainant’s counsel opposed the petition, contending that:

  • The petitioners had an ulterior motive and were attempting to unlawfully acquire the property of the complainant and her husband.
  • The absence of an affidavit should not be a reason to quash the complaint, as it was merely a technical lapse and did not affect the merits of the case.
  • The complaint was valid, and the petitioners should face a criminal investigation into their alleged fraudulent activities.

High Court’s Final Verdict

After carefully examining the arguments, Justice Vikas Mahajan quashed the FIR registration orders, affirming that:

  • Affidavit submission is a mandatory procedural requirement, and its non-compliance renders an application under Section 156(3) CrPC legally untenable.
  • The ACMM erred in entertaining the application and directing the police to register an FIR without the necessary supporting affidavit.
  • The Additional Sessions Judge also erred in dismissing the revision petition, failing to acknowledge the procedural flaw in the original FIR registration order.

Legal Implications of the Judgment

This ruling holds critical legal significance, particularly concerning procedural compliance in criminal investigations. It reinforces the Supreme Court’s mandate on affidavit requirements, ensuring that trial courts do not bypass legal safeguards when directing FIR registrations.

Key takeaways from this decision include:

  1. Strengthened procedural safeguards – The judgment emphasizes that affidavit submission is mandatory to prevent misuse of criminal law.
  2. Prevention of frivolous litigation – Courts must ensure that complaints are backed by sworn statements to deter false or malicious FIR requests.
  3. Judicial accountability – Magistrates must strictly adhere to established legal procedures, as any deviation may render their orders invalid.

What Happens Next?

With the Delhi High Court quashing the FIR orders, the petitioners, Rajat Bhagat and Sarika Bhagat, are no longer under immediate criminal investigation based on the complaint. However, the complainant may:

  • Refile the application with a duly sworn affidavit, ensuring compliance with the legal requirements.
  • Pursue civil remedies, if the allegations pertain to financial disputes that can be addressed outside criminal law.
  • Approach the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s ruling if she believes that justice was not served.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision is a landmark ruling reinforcing procedural integrity in criminal proceedings. By ensuring strict compliance with affidavit requirements, the court has safeguarded due process and set a precedent that may influence future FIR registrations across India.

This case serves as a cautionary example for litigants and legal practitioners, reaffirming that judicial mandates on procedural requirements must be followed diligently.

Do you think affidavit requirements should always be strictly enforced in FIR registrations? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Location: Pune, Maharashtra, India

Comments

Post a Comment