Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Neelam Samial – Appellant
Versus
Devinder Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for setting aside the summoning order dated 16.3.2024, passed in Private Complaint No. 2554 of 2023, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) and for quashing the complaint. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving to the present petition are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). As per the complainant, the accused and her husband visited the office of the Panchayat eleven days after the death of the complainant’s father. They shouted in Panchayat “Humarey Liye ye budha 7 saal phele mar chuka tha, who gawar aur anpad tha, mere liye who zero the zero”. This hurt the sentiments of the complainant and lowered the image of his father. The accused also circulated SMS/Messages on Whatsapp stating that “Tu meri maa ko phone karke kya batana chahta hai unko sab pta hai ki teri okat kya
Defamatory statements about a deceased individual can still harm the reputation of their relatives, establishing grounds for defamation under Section 500 IPC.
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 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 emphasized that a Magistrate must demonstrate satisfaction regarding grounds for proceeding against accused before issuing summons, and quashing of proceedings should be an exception.
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 trial Court must conduct a sufficient inquiry under Section 202 before summoning an accused for defamation, ensuring no abuse of process occurs.
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
