SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 963

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA 
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Rohit Mahajan & others - Petitioners 
Versus 
State of Himachal Pradesh and another – Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 756 of 2024
Decided On : 24-03-2025


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General.

The court held that specific allegations of harassment and dowry demands in the FIR constituted a cognizable offence, and vague allegations do not suffice for prosecution.

Headnote:

(A) The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 498-A, 504, 506, and 34 - Quashing of FIR - Allegations of harassment and demand for dowry made against the petitioners - The informant's complaint detailed specific instances of harassment and demands for money, which were corroborated by witness statements - The court emphasized that vague and general allegations do not suffice for prosecution under IPC - The FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and could not be quashed at this stage. (Paras 1, 20, 26)

(B) Quashing of FIR - Principles - The court reiterated that FIRs can be quashed only when allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence or are vague and general - The court must not conduct a mini-trial at this stage. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 24)

Facts of the case:
The informant alleged that her husband and in-laws subjected her to harassment and demanded dowry, leading to her leaving the matrimonial home. The FIR was filed after six years of marriage, and the petitioners claimed the allegations were vague and made with mala fide intent.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations were specific and supported by witness statements, thus justifying the continuation of the proceedings.

Issues: The main issues were whether the allegations in the FIR were specific enough to constitute an offence and whether the FIR could be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the allegations made in the FIR were specific and corroborated by witnesses, thus constituting a cognizable offence. The court also noted that it cannot determine the truthfulness of the allegations at this stage.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)

The present petition under Section 528 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. No. 293 of 2021, dated 16.11.2021 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), registered at Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of the F.I.R.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant made a complaint to Police Post Dehar on 16.11.2021 stating that she was married to accused Rohit Mahajan six years before filing the complaint. One daughter Yahana and one son Yashit were born to her. Her husband Rohit Mahajan, her mother-in-law Veena Mahajan, her father-in-law Sushil Mahajan, and her sisters-in-law Ruchita, Suchita and Sumila started picking up faults in the household chores done by her after the lapse of some months. They used to say that the informant was a ‘Pahadan’, who did not know household work, she did know how to cook food, her parents had not taught her anything and her parents had no standards. Accused Ruchita, Suchita and Sumila used to taunt her for the work done by her. They used to say that her parents had not provided anything in the marriage. The informant’s parents gifted a Kisan Vikas Patra of Rs.1,00,000/- to her. The accused threw Kisan Vikas Patra on the informant’s face and told her to get Rs.5,00,000/- or else she should not return to her matrimonial home. The accused told her that she would not be allowed to meet her children. She was not permitted to go outside her matrimonial home. Her sisters-in-law used to accompany her if ever she went out of her matrimonial home. The informant’s husband and his relatives used to say that she had an illicit relationship with her brother-in-law. The accused used to say that the ornaments given to her were quite small and no ornaments were given to her sisters-in-law. The informant’s husband, her parents-in-law and her sisters-in-law asked her many times to bring money from her parents. The informant’s father handed over the money two times. The informant went to her parental home on 11.10.2021 with Suchita, the driver and her daughter. She was dropped at Shalaghat by her sister-in-law. The informant called her brother, who took her to her parental home. The informant fell ill and whenever she called her husband, her phone was not picked up. She was also not allowed to talk to her children. The accused threatened to falsely implicate the parents and sisters of the informant. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. A charge sheet was filed before the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class-II, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. after completion of the investigation

3. Being aggrieved from the registration of the F.I.R. and filing of the charge sheet, the petitioners have filed the present petition asserting that the informant had left her matrimonial home on her own. She had given a stereo-typed version. No specific allegations giving particulars of offence and date of incident were given. The continuation of the proceedings is an abuse of the process of the Court. The F.I.R. was lodged after the six years of the marriage. The petitioners treated the informant cordially and they never harassed her. The criminal proceedings have been initiated with mala fide intention to harass the petitioners. The informant had not made any complaint to Pardhan or the Police after 2015. The informant is residing with her parents on her own. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and F.I.R. and consequential proceedings arising out of the same be quashed.

4. The petition is opposed by respondent / State by filing a reply making preliminary submissions regarding lack of maintainability, the F.I.R. discloses the commission of a heinous offence and the present petition having been file

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top