Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Dhinu Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)
The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R. No. 65 of 2024 dated 17.04.2024, registered at Police Station Manali, District Kullu, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Section 323, 354, 355, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and consequential proceedings arising out of it.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that informant/respondent No. 2 made a complaint to the police, asserting that the petitioner, Dhinu Ram, threw the waste from his property to the informant’s property on 16th April 2024 at 2 PM. The informant went to the petitioner and requested him not to throw the waste. The petitioner abused the informant and threatened to throw the waste on her face and eyes. He touched the informant’s breasts and slapped her twice. Petitioner Dhinu Ram’s wife also attacked the informant. The informant’s son came to the spot to rescue her, but the petitioners also abused and threatened him. The Police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation.
3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the F.I.R., the petitioners have filed the present petition to qua
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 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 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 specific allegations of assault and trespass in the FIR constituted cognizable offences, thus not warranting quashing.
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 an FIR cannot be quashed if it discloses cognizable offences, and allegations of mala fide do not suffice for quashing proceedings.
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 held that allegations in the FIR constituted cognizable offences, including voyeurism and assault, and dismissed the petition to quash the FIR.
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.
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
