Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Sarita Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. a – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 48 of 2021, dated 19th July 2021, registered at Police Station New Shimla for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506, and 509 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant, Poonam, made a complaint to the police asserting that petitioner Sarika and her husband Loveneesh Kumar threatened, abused and manhandled her at about 5:40 PM on 19th July 2021, when she was returning to her home from her office. The petitioner, Sarika Devi, obstructed her path, shouted at her and did not allow her to go to her residence. When the informant tried to move further, the petitioners, Sarika and her husband pushed her to the corner of the corridor in front of Block No. 9. They asked her not to move a single step and kept her confined for 15 minutes in the corner. The informant had requested petitioner Loveneesh Kumar on the evening of 17th July 2021, not to make his pet dog litter in the courtyard as her children play in the Courtyard. The petitioner Loveneesh Kumar shouted and sai
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 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 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 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 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.
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 held that specific allegations of assault and trespass in the FIR constituted cognizable offences, thus not warranting quashing.
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.
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
