Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Chandra Shekhar Jha
Naman Kumar @ Abhinav Krishna, Minor under the guardianship of his mother namely, Smt. Kiran Kumari – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the fir and incidents surrounding it. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments propounded by petitioners regarding motives and inconsistencies. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's analysis on fir validity and legal principles. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. final ruling and order for quashing. (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.
The present quashing petition preferred to quash the Gardanibagh (Patna) P.S. Case No. 118/2021 dated 22.03.2021, lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . The aforesaid FIR was lodged on the basis of written report of the informant/opposite party no. 2, namely Shankar Kumar @ Shankar Kumar Ram.
2. The brief case of prosecution, as it appears from the written report of the informant/opposite party no. 2 made before Gardanibagh Police Station on 22.03.2021 that on 20.03.2021 at about 6:00 PM his son, namely, Shivam Kumar while going to purchase some goods from a nearby shop, the son of petitioner no. 2 namely, Naman Kumar, who is aged about 14 years has dashed him with his scooty, where petitioner no. 2 was sitting as a pillion rider. It is alleged that after the
A minor below 12 years is generally not liable for criminal offences under Section 83; consequently, FIR details must enable the formation of a prima facie case for the court to permit prosecution.
The court held that an FIR alleging cognizable offences cannot be quashed merely based on claims of disability or false implication; the truth of allegations is to be assessed at trial.
The court quashed the FIR under Section 420 IPC, finding no cognizable offence and highlighting the violation of natural justice principles in the registration process.
Declined quashing of FIR under inherent powers as witnesses named petitioner establishing prima facie case; trial delay not warranting quashing, instead directed conclusion within five months to upho....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
