Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Armaan – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing the FIR No. 192/2022 dated 8th June 2022, registered at Police Station Una for the commission of offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they are arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant made a complaint to the police, asserting that her sister, Guddi alias Sapna (since deceased), was serving in a private company at Baddi. Reena Thakur resided near the room of Guddi in the same vicinity. Reena told the informant that petitioner No.1 Arman came to Guddi’s room on 4th June 2022 at 10:30. Petitioner No.1 and Guddi went to the Gurudwara on 5th June 2022. Armaan left the room of Guddi on 6th June 2022. He called Guddi and asked her to visit Una to meet his mother, the petitioner No.2 Rakesh Kumari, to discuss the marriage between Armaan and Guddi. Guddi left for Una on 7th June 2022. She informed Reena that she was going
Mere refusal to marry does not amount to abetment of suicide; FIR can only be quashed if allegations do not constitute a prima facie case.
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.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or direct causation linked to the act of suicide, which was not present in this case.
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 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 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 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 High Court cannot quash an FIR unless the allegations do not constitute an offence; the judiciary must respect the trial process and not supplant it with its judgment on the merits of the case.
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.
Vague and omnibus allegations in FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence; however, if allegations disclose prima facie commission of offences, FIR cannot be quashed.
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
