The court held that specific allegations of assault and trespass in the FIR constituted cognizable offences, thus not warranting quashing.

JUDGMENT :

(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)

The present petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 75 of 2018 dated 18.04.2018 registered against the petitioner at Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu (H.P) for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 504 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (“in short IPC”) and the consequential proceedings pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu (H.P) in Case No.119 of 2019 titled as State of H.P. Vs. Panna Devi.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant-respondent No.2 made a complaint to the police that she was constructing a boundary wall with her husband on 18.04.2018 at 12:30 pm when the petitioner – Panna Devi objected to the construction of the boundary wall. She abused the informant and claimed that the land belonged to her. The spot was demarcated on 01.12.2017, and the land was found to be owned by the informant. The petitioner- Panna Devi, gave beatings to the informant. The informant sustained injuries. Her husband tried to rescue her, but he was also beaten. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. A medical examination of the informant and her husband was conducted. The injuries sustained by them were found to be simple. The place was demarcated, and the disputed portion was found to be owned by the informant. The police recorded the statements of the witnesses and filed a charge sheet before the learned trial Court.

3. Being aggrieved from the registration of the FIR and filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner has filed the present petition asserting that the informant has concocted a false story. The petitioner and the informant’s family had a land dispute. The petitioner is peacefully occupying the land in her portion. Civil suits are also pending between the parties. The informant and her husband were constructing the boundary wall after encroaching upon the petitioner’s land. The petitioner objected, and she was beaten by the informant and her husband. She reported the matter to the police, and FIR No.74/2018 was registered at the police station. She was medically examined, and the injuries sustained by her were found to be grievous. The police filed a charge sheet in FIR No.74/2018, and the matter is pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu (H.P). The informant got the FIR registered as a counterblast to the FIR of the petitioner. The dispute between the parties is civil. No fruitful purpose would be served by the continuation of the proceedings before the learned Trial Court. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and FIR and the consequent proceedings be quashed.

4. The petition is opposed by respondent No.1 by filing a reply denying the contents of the petition. However, the filing of the FIR by both parties was not disputed. It was asserted that the police conducted the investigation and found sufÏcient material to corroborate the allegations of the parties. Hence, the charge- sheet was prepared and filed before the competent Court for judicial verdict. It was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

5. I have heard Mr Dibender Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1-State and Ms. Meera Devi, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

6. Mr Dibender Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the FIR was lodged by the informant as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the petitioner. The allegations in the FIR lodged by the informant are vague and do not constitute the commission of a cognizable offence. The continuation of the trial will amount to an abuse of process of the Court. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and FIR be quashed.

7. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1-State, submitted that the allegations made by the informant were duly corroborated by the witnesses during the in