Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Prakash – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R. No. 19 of 2020, dated 25.03.2020, registered at Police Station Renukaji, District Sirmour, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of INDIAN PENAL CODE ( IPC ) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and the consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR (the parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the victim (name being withheld to protect her identity) made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Shimla, asserting that the accused, Prakash, used to tease her and talk indecently with her. He used to follow her whenever she went to graze the goats. She was present in the Ghasni on 02.01.2020 at 3-4 p.m. when the accused came to the Ghasni and raped her. She shouted for help, but there was no one to help her. The accused threatened to kill her in case she revealed the incident to any person. She got frightened and could not reveal the incident to an
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.
The court held that allegations in the FIR constituted cognizable offences, including voyeurism and assault, and dismissed the petition to quash the FIR.
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 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 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 emphasized that when a victim alleges rape and states there was no consent, the presumption under Section 114A of the IPC must apply, reinforcing that such matters must be resolved in a ful....
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 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 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.
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.
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
