Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Ashok Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing/deleting Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short ‘the SC & ST Act’) in FIR no. 108 of 2023, dated 11.12.2023 registered in Police Station Rakkar, Tehsil Rakkar, District Kangra and consequent proceedings arising out of the FIR.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant made a complaint to the police asserting that she was proceeding towards Hamirpur in her Scooty on 10.12.2023 at about 5:00 pm. She found that the petitioners had damaged the road leading to her house after entering her land. The informant objected. The petitioners touched her inappropriately. The petitioners attacked her with a Shovel (Jhamb). The informant called her family members. Her parents, brother and sister-in-law reached the spot. The petitioners gave them beatings. The petitioners abused them by the name of their caste. The informant and her family members sustained injuries in the incident. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation.
3. Being aggrieved from the registration of the FIR, the peti
The court upheld the FIR under the SC & ST Act, affirming that allegations of caste-based violence and abuse constituted a prima facie case, rejecting the petitioners' claims of falsehood.
The court ruled that allegations of caste-based abuse in public view under the SC & ST Act cannot be quashed without trial, emphasizing the need for intent to humiliate linked to caste identity.
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 emphasized the requirement of proving allegations during trial and the limited exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIRs.
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 FIR lacked essential elements to support charges under the Atrocities Act, leading to its quashing as an abuse of process.
The court held that specific allegations of assault and trespass in the FIR constituted cognizable offences, thus not warranting quashing.
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.
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
