Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Shiv Singh and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and Anr. - Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 711 of 2023
Decided On : 22-04-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 354, 354-C, 504, 323, and 34 - Quashing of FIR - Petitioners sought to quash FIR for offences including voyeurism and assault, claiming it was a counter-blast to their earlier complaint - Court found prima facie evidence of voyeurism and assault, dismissing the petition - The FIR's allegations constituted cognizable offences, and the petitioners had a remedy of seeking discharge in the Trial Court. (Paras 1, 14, 15, 26)
(B) Quashing of FIR - Principles - The court explained that FIRs can be quashed if allegations do not constitute an offence, or if they are absurd or inherently improbable - The petitioners' claims of mala fides were insufficient to quash the FIR. (Paras 11, 12, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were accused of voyeurism and assault against the informant, who reported that the petitioner watched her in the bathroom and assaulted her husband. The petitioners claimed the FIR was filed in retaliation for their earlier complaint.
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient prima facie evidence to support the allegations in the FIR, including voyeurism and assault, and dismissed the petition to quash the FIR.
Issues: The main issues included whether the FIR constituted a cognizable offence and whether the allegations were made in bad faith.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the allegations in the FIR, if taken at face value, constituted cognizable offences, and the petitioners' claims of mala fides did not warrant quashing the FIR.
Result: Petition dismissed.
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 beatings to the informant. The accused Shiv Singh used to peep into the bathroom whenever the informant used to go inside it on earlier occasions as well. The Police registered the FIR, conducted the investigation, and filed a charge sheet after the completion of the investigation before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, (learned Trial Court), Indora, District Kangra, H.P.
3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and filing of the charge sheet, the petitioners have filed the present petition asserting that petitioner No. 1 had filed a complaint against the informant and other persons in Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. asserting that the informant, her husband and her son gave beatings to petitioner No.1 on 27.01.2019 when he was sweeping his house. Petitioner No.1 sustained injury and he reported the matter to the Police but the Police did not register any FIR or any entry in the Daily Diary. The Police got the medical examination of petitioner No.1 conducted on 27.01.2019 and referred him to the expert opinion from the Radiologist. The Police filed a complaint under Sections 107 , 145 and 150 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. The Investigating Officer asked petitioner No.1 to give a fresh complaint, as per his own version and sign the same. Subsequently, the Police registered an FIR No.09/2019 dated 28.01.2019 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 325, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) at Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, H.P. The informant filed a false complaint on 30.01.2019 against the petitioners. The informant also made a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. which is totally contradictory to the contents of the FIR. Petitioner No.1 also filed a complaint on 29.11.2018 regarding the disposal of garbage and drainage of dirty water into the residential area of petitioner No.2. Civil proceedings are pending between petitioner No.1 and the informant and an interim injunction was also issued by the competent Court. The present FIR has been lodged to wreak vengeance upon the petitioners. The ingredients of Section 354-C of IPC are not satisfied. The continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of the Court; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed.
4. The petition is opposed by respondent/State by filing a reply making preliminary submissions regarding the lack of maintainability, and the petitioners having not approached the Court with clean hands. The contents of the petition were denied on merits. However, it was admitted that the informant and petitioner No.1 had reported the matter to the Police. It was asserted that the Pol
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
