Back
KULDEEP MATHUR
Isha Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Kuldeep Mathur, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the FIR No.65/2018 dated 09.08.2018 registered at P.S. Bekariya, Udaipur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned FIR dated 09.08.2018 has been lodged for an incident, which took place on 21.02.2018 and the delay in lodging the FIR is sufficient to quash the same.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that for the quarrel, which took place on 21.02.2017, an FIR was lodged on 22.02.2018 by one Shri Motiram and petitioner Devaram and proceedings under Sections 107 and 166 Cr.P.C. were initiated. It is also submitted that the impugned FIR has been lodged by the police under influence and only with a view to harass and humiliate the petitioners.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in the quarrel, which took place between the parties on 21.02.2018, the complainant-respondent No.2 was inflicted head injury by the petitioner and consequent thereto, he remained hospitalized and to substantiate this fact, various medical reports have been shown to the Court.
5. Learned Publi
The court reaffirmed that delays in filing an FIR do not automatically justify quashing it, especially when there is substantial evidence of injury and wrongdoing.
The Court cannot quash an FIR based solely on delay and can consider medical reports as evidence in determining the seriousness of injuries.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to quash an FIR should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, as per the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.
The court ruled that an FIR can only be quashed if the allegations do not constitute a cognizable offence, and the truthfulness of the allegations cannot be determined at the quashing stage.
The court held that allegations in the FIR constituted cognizable offences, including voyeurism and assault, and dismissed the petition to quash the FIR.
The court held that specific allegations of assault and trespass in the FIR constituted cognizable offences, thus not warranting quashing.
The scope for quashing FIRs under Section 482 of CrPC is limited and requires concrete grounds showing no cognizable offences are disclosed.
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
