Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Panna Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
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
The court held that specific allegations of assault and trespass in the FIR constituted cognizable offences, thus not warranting quashing.
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 quash an FIR based on allegations of mala fides or insufficient evidence; it must determine if the FIR discloses a cognizable offence.
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 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 held that allegations in the FIR constituted cognizable offences, including voyeurism and assault, and dismissed the petition to quash the FIR.
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 an FIR cannot be quashed if it discloses cognizable offences, and allegations of mala fide do not suffice for quashing proceedings.
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 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....
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
