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.

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 16^th 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 quash the F.I.R. and any consequential proceedings arising from it. It was asserted that the petitioners were made accused based on the false, frivolous, and baseless story of the informant. The present FIR is a counterblast to the earlier FIR No. 62 of 2024 lodged by petitioner No.1 against the informant. The allegations in the current FIR are contradictory. The statements recorded by the police also cast serious doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution’s story. The allegations in the FIR do not disclose the commission of any offence. The allegations are absurd and inherently improbable, based on which no prudent person could reasonably conclude that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners. There is a boundary dispute between the parties, and the FIR was lodged with mala fide intention. There is no evidence connecting the petitioner to the commission of the crime. The informant and her son had not suffered any grievous injuries. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed, the F.I.R. and any consequential proceedings arising from it be quashed.

4. I have heard M/s Jia Lal and G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1/State.

5. Mr Jia Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the present FIR was lodged as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by petitioner No.1 against the informant. The allegations in the FIR are false, which is evident from the contradictions between the statements of the witnesses and the contents of the FIR. There is a boundary dispute between the parties, and the FIR was lodged by the informant against the petitioners to pressurise them. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the F.I.R. and consequential proceedings arising out of it be quashed.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlheria, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent no. 1/State submitted that the contents of the FIR show the commission of a cognisable offence. The FIR cannot be quashed merely because petitioner No.1 had also lodged an FIR against the informant. The challan has been filed before the competent Court, and this Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdiction. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. The law relating to quashing of FIR was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7 as under: -

“7. As far as the quashing of criminal cases is concerned, it is now more or less well settled as regards the principles to be applied by the court. In this regard, one may refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v.