Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, RAJANI DUBEY, JJ.
Suresh Kumar S/o Thanwar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPCR No. 299 of 2021
Decided on : 12-07-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 294, 323, 506 – Obscene acts and songs – Offence of criminal intimidation, Voluntarily causing hurt – Quashed First Information Report – Held, From perusal of impugned FIR (Annexure P/1) as also FIR (Annexure P/2) lodged by petitioner No.2, it is seen that incident took place – Petitioner No.2 Harsh Kumar promptly lodged FIR on same day against respondent No.3 Gaurav Betal under Section 294, 323 & 506 of IPC whereas impugned FIR was lodged by respondent No.3 against petitioners after 10 days of incident – No reason whatsoever has been assigned in impugned FIR for such delay – Apart, from a bare reading of impugned FIR it is evident that there is no allegation in it constituting offence under Section 294 of IPC, which is a cognizable offence or Section 506 of IPC which is a non-cognizable offence – Impugned FIR appears to be nothing but an afterthought – Petition allowed.
ORDER :
Ramesh Sinha, J.
Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Also heard Mr. Wasim Miyan, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents and Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
2. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):
b) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as the Hon’ble Court may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. It is stated in the petition by the petitioners that on 21.3.2021 at around 7 pm when petitioner No.2 Harsh Kumar, aged about 14 years, was sitting in the playground, at that time respondent No.3 Gaurav Betal came there and saying that petitioner No.2 abuses him behind his back, started abusing him filthily, threatened him of life and assaulted him with Kada Chuda (a bangle shaped article made of iron) on his forehead and head as a result of which petitioner No.2 suffered injuries. On report being lodged by him on the same day i.e. 21.3.2021 at 20:10 hours, offences under Sections 294, 323 & 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) were registered against respondent No.3 Gaurav Betal. However, after a lapse of 10 days, respondent No.3 also lodged a report against the petitioners herein in connection with the said incident, on which offences under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of IPC were registered against them. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR bearing Crime No.183/2021 registered against the petitioners is totally false and frivolous. A bare reading of contents of the said FIR, it is crystal clear that the basic ingredients for attracting the offence under Sections 294 & 506 of IPC are extremely missing in it. It has been lodged just as a counter blast of the FIR lodged by petitioner No.2 against respondent No.3 to create pressure on the petitioners. Offence under Section 294 of IPC is a cognizable offence whereas offence under Sections 323 and 506 of IPC are non-cognizable offences. However, there is nothing in the FIR to show commission of offence under Section 294 of IPC, even then the same was registered against the petitioners. The petitioners have also made a complaint in this regard to the Superintendent of Police, Mungeli on 17.5.2021 but of no avail. It is worthwhile to mention here that as per the impugned FIR, both the petitioners assaulted respondent No.3 on 21.3.2021 whereas petitioner No.1 at the relevant time was at home as he was suffering from typhoid and chronic fever since 18.3.2021 and was not in a positive to move. He was continuously taking medical treatment up to 23.3.2021. In support of above contention, medical documents of petitioner No.1 have been annexed herewith as Annexure P/3. In these circumstances, the impugned FIR is liable to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that true it is that the impugned FIR was lodged after 10 days of the incident, however, merely on that ground, the same cannot be quashed. The allegations leveled against the petitioners are false or not, is to be decided during the course of trial. Therefore, at this stage, it would not be proper to quash the impugned FIR.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has opposed the prayer of the petitioners and contended that due to assault made by the petitioners on respondent No.3 in the said incident, he suffered injury on his ear. The petition filed by the petitioners is without any substance and therefore, the same may be dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
8. The parameters for quashing an FIR have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. The Court has held thus:
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the continuance of an FIR and investigation can be considered an abuse of process of law, and the court has the power to quash such proceeding....
The court held that allegations in the FIR constituted cognizable offences, including voyeurism and assault, and dismissed the petition to quash the FIR.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the powers to quash criminal proceedings under inherent jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and that the prese....
FIR quashed under Section 528 BNSS as counter-blast to petitioner's prior complaint alleging outraging modesty, per Bhajan Lal Category 7, due to unexplained six-day delay and mala fide intent amid l....
The court held that specific allegations of assault and trespass in the FIR constituted cognizable offences, thus not warranting quashing.
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
