Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Shiv Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J
The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 10 of 2019 dated 30.01.2019 registered at Police Station Indora, District Kangra, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-C, 504 , 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the victim (name being withheld to protect her identity) had gone to her bathroom on 30.01.2019 at about 6 a.m. The bathroom does not have a door and a bedsheet is hung in place of the door. The petitioner started doing obscene acts after standing near the bathroom. He also pelted stones towards the bathroom. The informant got frightened and started screaming. Her husband and her sisters-in-law ran towards the bathroom. The informant narrated the incident to them. The informant’s husband asked the petitioner/accused whether he did not have any mother or sister at home. The petitioner abused the informant’s husband and inflicted injury on him with some sharp edged weapon. The petitioner-accused Anju Devi also came to the spot after hearing the noise. She pushed the informant over the barbed wire. She also gave
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 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 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.
The court held that specific allegations of assault and trespass in the FIR constituted cognizable offences, thus not warranting quashing.
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 disclosed a prima facie case under Section 170 IPC, and quashing was not warranted at this stage.
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....
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 established that allegations in an FIR, if taken at face value, can substantiate the commission of a cognizable offence, thus inhibiting quashing unless clearly abusive or lacking merit.
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
