Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Satish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of criminal proceedings pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baijnath, District Kangra (learned Trial Court) in a case titled State of H.P. versus Satish Kumar and others arising out of FIR No. 5/2024 dated 3rd January 2024 registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 147, 149, 504, and 506 of Indian Penal code ( IPC ) at Police Station, Baijnath District Kangra, HP. (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 Sunny Kumar (informant) and Chaman Kumar were going to Delhi on 24th December 2023 in a bus bearing registration No. DD-01R-9971. When the bus reached Palampur, a passenger sitting behind them started misbehaving with them. They also had arguments with the driver and conductor. They got off the bus at Kalu Di Hatti. The bus left for Delhi. When they were returning to their home, they received a call from the mobile number xxx6008 and the caller started abusing them. The call
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 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 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 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 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 disclosed a prima facie case under Section 170 IPC, and quashing was not warranted at this stage.
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 constituted cognizable offences, including voyeurism and assault, and dismissed the petition to quash the FIR.
The court held that specific allegations of assault and trespass in the FIR constituted cognizable offences, thus not warranting quashing.
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
