<p>The High Court has refused to quash the criminal case against an advocate who allegedly threw a water bottle at a law intern and also threw her mobile phone.</p>.<p>The complainant stated that she was working with a law firm as an intern. An altercation broke out when she requested for an internship certificate and the advocate allegedly threw the water bottle at her, causing injuries to her. The intern filed a complaint for offences under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and under IPC Sections 506, 509, 341, 324 and 354.</p>.<p>The advocate moved the High Court praying to quash the proceedings initiated against him. Justice V Shrishananda pointed out that the petitioner-advocate had also subsequently filed a complaint against the intern and the police are required to consider the averments made by him and take into consideration the explanation offered by him.</p>.<p>"Relief under Section 482 CrPC as sought for by the petitioner at this stage cannot be granted by this court for more than one reason. Firstly, the investigation is still under progress and police may file appropriate report after thorough investigation. Secondly, expressing any opinion at this stage in respect to the merits of the matter, the rights of the parties would be put to jeopardy. Thirdly, no court can stop an investigation in respect of a cognizable offence unless a particular person makes out a case that the very complaint is frivolous in nature and results in abuse of process of court," the court said.</p>.<p><strong>Watch latest videos by DH here:</strong></p>
<p>The High Court has refused to quash the criminal case against an advocate who allegedly threw a water bottle at a law intern and also threw her mobile phone.</p>.<p>The complainant stated that she was working with a law firm as an intern. An altercation broke out when she requested for an internship certificate and the advocate allegedly threw the water bottle at her, causing injuries to her. The intern filed a complaint for offences under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and under IPC Sections 506, 509, 341, 324 and 354.</p>.<p>The advocate moved the High Court praying to quash the proceedings initiated against him. Justice V Shrishananda pointed out that the petitioner-advocate had also subsequently filed a complaint against the intern and the police are required to consider the averments made by him and take into consideration the explanation offered by him.</p>.<p>"Relief under Section 482 CrPC as sought for by the petitioner at this stage cannot be granted by this court for more than one reason. Firstly, the investigation is still under progress and police may file appropriate report after thorough investigation. Secondly, expressing any opinion at this stage in respect to the merits of the matter, the rights of the parties would be put to jeopardy. Thirdly, no court can stop an investigation in respect of a cognizable offence unless a particular person makes out a case that the very complaint is frivolous in nature and results in abuse of process of court," the court said.</p>.<p><strong>Watch latest videos by DH here:</strong></p>