Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 267
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Jai Singh (since deceased) through LR - Appellant
Versus
Kishori Lal - Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 793 of 2022
Decided on : 08-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Y.P.Sood, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Narender Singh, Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General
Delay in reporting a crime cannot solely justify dismissal of a complaint; the trial must assess evidence to determine the aggressor.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 451, 323, 325, 504, and 506 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 200 - Dismissal of protest petition - The informant alleged that he and his son were attacked by the accused while they were objecting to digging on their property. The learned Trial Court dismissed the protest petition citing a delay in reporting the incident and lack of prima facie evidence against the accused. The court emphasized that delay alone cannot justify dismissal and that the trial must assess evidence to determine aggressor status. (Paras 7, 15, 20)
(B) Criminal Procedure - The court must examine the complainant and witnesses on oath as per Section 200 of Cr.P.C. - The learned Trial Court's acceptance of affidavits was contrary to the provisions of the law. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The informant reported an attack by Kishori Lal and his laborers while they were digging land near his boundary wall. The informant and his son were accused of being the aggressors after the police investigation. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The learned Trial Court's dismissal of the protest petition was set aside, and the matter was directed to proceed as per law. (Paras 21, 23)
Issues: Whether the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the protest petition based on delay and whether proper procedure was followed in examining the complainant. (Paras 8, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that delay in reporting an incident cannot solely justify dismissal of a complaint, and the trial must determine the facts through evidence. (Paras 15, 18)
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 29.07.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1 Rohroo, District Shimla H.P.(learned Trial Court) vide which final report submitted the police was accepted.
(The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner in which they are arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that informant made a complaint to the Police stating therein that on 15.10.2018 at 3:30 p.m. he was present in his courtyard. Kishori Lal and his labourers were digging the land near his boundary wall for constructing a septic tank. The informant told them not to dig the land, as it would damage the house. Kishori Lal replied that that is why he is digging the land. He intended to damage of the house of the informant by digging the land. He attacked the informant with a spade. Rajeev (accused brother) also reached on the spot. He was heavily intoxicated. He threatened to kill the informant. Both of them entered into courtyard of the informant. The informant son tried to rescue him, however, Kishori Lal and Rajeev attached him and snatched his gold chain. He (informant’s son) sustained injuries. The informant was also beaten. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. The victims were sent for medical examination and the Medical Officer reported that they had sustained simple injuries. It was found during the investigation that the incident had taken place on 15.10.2018 but the matter was reported on 17.10.2018. An F.I.R. No. 138 of 2018 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 323, 325, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered against the informant and his son Sunil regarding this incident. The place of incident was found to be owned by Kishori Lal. The informant and his son had objected to the digging of the land which led to the quarrel. The informant and his son attacked on Kishori Lal and his labourers with various implements. Kishori Lal sustained injuries in the incident. Hence, it was prayed that F.I.R. be cancelled.
3. The learned Trial Court issued the notice to the informant, who filed a protest petition asserting that the report submitted by the police was incorrect. The police did not investigate the matter properly. Kishori Lal and his labourers the aggressor, who inflicted the injuries to the informant and his son, therefore, it was prayed that final report be rejected.
4. Petition was opposed by filing a status report was filed by the police reproducing the contents of the final report.
5. A rejoinder denying the contents of the status report and affirming those of the petition was filed.
6. The informant filed his affidavit Ext. CW-1/A and affidavit of Rohit Sharma, Ext.CW-2/A.
7. Learned Trial Court held that the matter was reported to the police after two days. No explanation was given for the delay. The police found that there was no case of criminal trespass. The informant failed to assign any reason as to why the matter was not reported on the date of incident. Hence, the protest petition was dismissed.
8. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the informant filed the present petition asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the protest petition. The procedure laid down in Chapter 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not followed. Learned Trial Court was required to determine whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused, it could not have appreciated the material on merits. It was duly established that an altercation had taken place between the parties. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by learned Trial Court be set aside.
9. I have heard Mr. Y.P.Sood, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Narender Singh, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Ajit Sharma,
