IMPORTANT POINT
The Court emphasized that the determination of the truthfulness of allegations and sufficiency of evidence is within the domain of the trial court, and the exercise of inherent power to quash the FIR is limited to cases where no cognizable offence is disclosed.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present petition has been filed for quashing FIR No. 37 of 2017, dated 8.3.2017, registered at Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 451 and 506 of IPC and order dated 9.5.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kanga at Dharamshala, vide which the case was listed for framing of charges.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informants Saji Devi and Jeet Kumar filed a complaint before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Baijnath against 17 persons asserting that the informants started construction of a house in October 2016 after uprooting an old kucha slate posh house existing over the land comprised in Khata No. 117 min, Khasra No. 251, exclusively owned and possessed by Prem Chand husband of Saji Devi and father of Jeet Kumar. One Prabhushan was engaged as a mason with labourers to carry out the construction work. On 27.1.2017, Saji Devi and her daughter-in-law Shashi were present at the construction site. All the accused came armed with sticks and stones to the place of construction at about 2.00 PM. They abused and threatened the informants and their family members. They demolished the walls. Informant Saji Devi tried to pacify the accused and requested them not to interfere with the ongoing construction. Accused Bindu pushed informant Saji Devi and she fell. Shashi tried to intervene and rescue Saji Devi but the accused pushed her. The accused threatened to kill informant Saji Devi and her entire family members. Accused Mansri Devi was armed with a stick and inflicted a blow on the head of Saji Devi. The other accused also gave kicks and fist blows to her. Jeet Ram reached the spot with his friend Rakesh Kumar. He inquired from the accused why they had trespassed into the land owned and possessed by his father. He tried to pacify the accused and requested them not to take the law in their hand. Mukesh Kumar caught hold of Jeet Ram from his neck and pushed him to the ground. The other accused gave beating to him with sticks and fist blows. Accused Veena snatched the mobile phone of Jeet Ram. He sustained injuries on his back, left hand and left leg. The accused persons left the spot and threatened to kill the informant party whenever they would get an opportunity to do so. They caused a loss of Rs.15,000/- by demolishing the construction. They also caused a loss of Rs.10,990/- by taking away the articles of the informant. The matter was reported to the police. The police got the informant party medically examined but did not take any action. A complaint under Sections 107, 145, and 150 of Cr.PC was filed before the learned SDM. Therefore, it was prayed that the application be allowed and directions be issued to the police to register the FIR.

3. The application was forwarded to the police. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version. The final opinion was obtained from the Medical Officer who stated that injury no. 1 sustained by Saji Devi was grievous and dangerous to life. Hence, an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC was also added. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court.

4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions from where it was assigned to the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge-III. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-III held that the pendency of the proceedings under Sections 107 and 145 of Cr.PC. is not material and does not constitute double jeopardy. There was sufficient material on record to frame charges against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 451, 506, 201 and 427 of IPC.

5. Aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the present petition has been filed assertin