Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Hem Raj & Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Another – Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 592 of 2021
Decided On : 24-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 447, 323, 504, 506, and 34 - Quashing of FIR - Petitioners sought to quash FIR alleging false accusations by the informant regarding an incident involving physical assault - The court emphasized that the truthfulness of allegations cannot be determined at this stage and that the FIR must disclose a prima facie case for proceeding - The court reiterated principles from B.N. John v. State of U.P. and State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal regarding quashing FIRs - The petition was dismissed as no grounds for quashing were established. (Paras 11-30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged FIR No. 233 of 2021 for alleged offences including assault, claiming it was lodged falsely as a counter to their own FIR against the informant. The informant alleged that the petitioners attacked him and his daughter while removing a wasp nest.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the FIR did not disclose a prima facie case for quashing, emphasizing that the truth of the allegations must be determined at trial.
Issues: The main issues included whether the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and the validity of the petitioners' claims of false accusations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that it cannot assess the truthfulness of allegations at the quashing stage and that the FIR must be evaluated based on its face value to determine if it constitutes an offence.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court emphasizes that at the stage of considering a petition for quashing an FIR, it cannot assess the truthfulness or falsity of the allegations made in the FIR. The primary consideration is whether the FIR discloses a prima facie case for proceeding with the investigation or trial (!) .
The decision to quash an FIR is governed by well-established principles, including whether the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not constitute any offence or do not disclose a cognizable offence, or if the allegations are inherently improbable or absurd (!) (!) (!) .
The court cannot delve into the veracity of the allegations or consider additional evidence or documents filed by the parties at this stage. It is only permitted to examine the FIR and the accompanying documents that are part of the investigation record (!) (!) .
The existence of enmity or political vendetta alone does not justify quashing an FIR if there is sufficient material to proceed with the case. The focus remains on whether the FIR discloses a cognizable offence and whether there is adequate evidence to support further investigation (!) (!) (!) .
The court reiterates that it cannot conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the credibility of the allegations during the quashing proceedings. The assessment is limited to whether the FIR, on its face, discloses a cognizable offence and whether continuing proceedings would amount to abuse of process (!) (!) (!) .
Once a charge sheet has been filed, the appropriate forum for evaluating the evidence and allegations is the trial court. The court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should refrain from re-evaluating the evidence or conducting a mini-trial at the quashing stage (!) (!) .
The court also notes that if the investigation reveals sufficient material, the proceedings should not be prematurely quashed based on allegations of mala fides, enmity, or the belief that the FIR is false, as these are matters to be examined during trial (!) (!) .
The overall approach is to ensure that the proceedings are not quashed unless it is clear that no offence is disclosed on the face of the FIR or the material collected during investigation, and that continuing with the case would constitute an abuse of process or be unjustified (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the petition for quashing, emphasizing that the trial court is the proper forum to examine the evidence and allegations in detail, and that the present proceedings are limited to assessing whether the FIR discloses a cognizable offence on its face (!) .
The observations made are confined to the disposal of the petition and do not pre-judge the merits of the case itself (!) .
These points collectively reflect the legal principles governing the scope and limits of judicial review in FIR quashing petitions, highlighting the importance of not prejudging the case at the initial stage and respecting the trial process for a thorough examination of the evidence.
JUDGMENT :
(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)
The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R. No. 233 of 2021 dated 15.07.2021, registered at Police Station Balh, District Mandi, and H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant made a complaint to the police that he and his daughter, Jonika, had gone to the backyard of their house on 06.07.2021 at about 9:30 p.m. to remove the wasp nest. Petitioner/accused Hem Raj came on the spot in a state of intoxication armed with a G.I. pipe. He hit Jonika. The informant asked the accused as to why he had beaten Jonika. The accused abused the informant. Vidya Devi, wife of accused Hem Raj, also reached the spot. She picked up a quarrel with the informant. The petitioner/accused, Kamal Kishore and Savitri Devi, came to the spot and pushed the informant. The petitioner/accused threatened to kill the informant. The matter was reported to the police, and an F.I.R. was registered in the Police Station. The police conducted the investigation.
3. Being aggrieved from the registration of the F.I.R., the petitioners have filed the present petition seeking its quashing. It has been asserted that the complainant has lodged a false F.I.R. They have also lodged a similar F.I.R. against the complainant and their family members. The informant had given beatings to petitioners No.1 and 2. An F.I.R. was registered regarding this incident. The informant got the F.I.R. registered to save himself. Pradhan of Gram Panchayat also visited the spot on the next dayand issued a report that there was no wasp nest in the backyard of the informant’s house. The registration and continuation of the F.I.R. amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the petition.
4. The petition is opposed by respondent No.1 by filing a reply, reproducing the contents of the F.I.R. It was asserted that the police conducted an investigation and seized the G.I. pipe. The Police found that the petitioner and his wife had committed the offence in furtherance of their common intention. Other persons were not present. Petitioners No.1 and 2 were arrested and released on bail. A charge sheet was prepared against them, which was filed before the Gram Panchayat Magar Padharu for judicial verdict. A quarrel occurred between the parties, and both parties sustained injuries. F.I.R. No.118 of 2016, dated 24.04.2016 was also registered against respondent No.2/informant, which is pending trial in the Court. The police investigated the F.I.R. as per the law. Hence, the reply/status report.
5. A separate reply was also filed by respondent No.2, taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability and the petition being an abuse of process of law. The contents of the petition were denied on merits, and it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. I have heard Mr Rakesh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1/State, and Mr Tara Singh Chauhan, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr Surya Chahan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
7. Mr Rakesh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that a false F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioners. The Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat visited the spot on the next day of the incident and submitted a report that there was no wasp nest in the backyard of the informant’s house. This falsifies the informant’s version that he and his daughter had gone to the backyard of their house to remove the wasp nest. The petitioner had also lodged an F.I.R. against the informant, and the informant lodged the present F.I.R. as a counterblast to the petitioner’s F.I.R. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and F.I.R. be quashed.
8. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted t
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.
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 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 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 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 specific allegations of assault and trespass in the FIR constituted cognizable offences, thus not warranting quashing.
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 held that allegations in the FIR constituted cognizable offences, including voyeurism and assault, and dismissed the petition to quash the FIR.
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 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.
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
