Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Om Prakash – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The petitioners have filed the present petitions for quashing of FIR No. 113/16 dated 23rd December 2016, registered in Police Station Kandaghat, District Solan for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 3 (1) (s) (r) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) (SC ST) Act and Section 7 (1) (b) of Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act, 1855 and the consequential proceedings pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (JMFC), Kandaghat. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petitions are that the informant made a complaint to the police, asserting that he was a Ward Member of the Gram Panchayat, Basha. He was returning to his home on 23rd December 2016 at about 6:45 PM in his vehicle. When he reached near the house of accused Chatter Singh, he found that Chatter Singh was standing on the road. He stopped the informant’s vehicle and started abusing him. He asked the informant to com
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 cannot quash an FIR based on allegations of mala fides or insufficient evidence; it must determine if the FIR discloses a cognizable offence.
The court ruled that an FIR cannot be quashed based on allegations of mala fides if it discloses cognizable offences, emphasizing the necessity of a trial to assess the truth of the allegations.
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 an FIR cannot be quashed if it discloses cognizable offences, and allegations of mala fide do not suffice for quashing proceedings.
The court upheld the FIR against the petitioner, ruling that sufficient allegations existed to constitute cognizable offences, and the truth of these allegations could not be evaluated at the quashin....
The court held that specific allegations of assault and trespass in the FIR constituted cognizable offences, thus not warranting quashing.
An FIR cannot be quashed if the allegations, taken at face value, indicate the commission of cognizable offences, and the court cannot assess their truthfulness at this stage.
The court cannot assess the truthfulness of allegations in an FIR at the quashing stage; it must determine if the FIR discloses a prima facie case for proceeding.
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
