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

2024 Supreme(HP) 474

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Sanjeev Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. - Respondent
CrMMO No. 702 of 2022
Decided on : 12-08-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate

The court affirmed the legitimacy of transferring related FIRs for consolidated trial to avoid conflicting judgments, upholding inherent jurisdiction to quash FIRs only in case of evident abuse of process.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Transfer of FIR - The petitioner, a police official, seeks to quash FIR No. 88 of 2015 registered under Sections 341, 323, and 504 IPC and challenges the transfer order to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The incident involves allegations of misconduct by police officers during an investigation subsequent to an initial FIR. The court found no legal bar against the FIR's continuation, noting the proceedings embody potential abuse of court process. (Paras 1, 4, 24)

(B) Inherent Powers - Jurisdiction - The Supreme Court has established that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC allows quashing of proceedings if they are frivolous or constitute an abuse of process of the court, reaffirming the necessity of examining evidential gaps during judicial assessments. (Para 12)

(C) Interlinked FIRs - The court highlights that FIR No. 88 is functionally connected to FIR No. 87, with circumstances necessitating their concurrent adjudication to prevent conflicting judgments arising from separate trials, thereby supporting the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's decision to transfer the case. (Para 24)

(D) No requirement for prior sanction - The court’s analysis ruled that no prosecution sanction is needed for police officials as the alleged act did not constitute an official duty violation. (Para 15)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the transfer order and dismissed the petition, asserting the legitimacy of FIR No. 88's continuation, particularly in light of allegations sufficient for a reasonable inquiry into the claimed offences.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. By way of present petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, petitioner herein, who is a police official, besides making prayer to quash FIR No. 88 of 2015, dated 9.4.2015, under Sections 341 , 323 and 504 of IPC registered with Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, has also prayed to set aside order dated 21.6.2022, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, whereby court below ordered for transfer of the case titled State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjeev Kumar, under Sections 341 , 323 and 504 of IPC, to the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Kangra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh from Gram Panchayat Haler Kalan.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that on 9.4.2015, one Smt. Subashana Devi, wife of Sh. Trilok Chand, lodged a complaint at Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that while she had returned from Mata Vaishno Devi Temple and had reached near Kangra Bus Stand, a bus belonging to Kaundal Bus Service, came from behind and hit a five year child namely Apoorav. Complainant alleged that person namely Seema Devi, who was vigilant, pulled the above named child, as a result thereof, he could be saved, however, luggage which was put on the roadside came to be crushed under the rear tyre of the bus. She alleged that driver though at some distance stopped the bus, but before he could be apprehended, he ran away from the spot. She alleged that after some time, driver came back alongwith another person, who claimed himself to be owner of the bus, but they instead of settling the matter started using filthy language. She alleged that traffic police personnel also reached on the spot and tried to make both the parties understand, but even then, they started manhandling them. She also alleged that later on, she came to know that name of driver of the bus was Ashwani, who not only hurled abuses, but also extended threats. Having taken note of the aforesaid complaint by the complainant Smt. Subhashana Devi, FIR No. 87 of 2015 came to be registered against persons namely Ashwani Kumar and Jaswinder Singh i.e. driver and owner of the vehicle, under Sections 279 , 283, 186, 341, 427 and 504 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

3. On the same day, Sh. Jaswinder Singh, owner of the bus in question also lodged FIR No. 88/2015, alleging therein that he was given beatings by the police constable. He alleged that on 9.4.2015 at about 4:00pm, conductor namely Sh. Rakesh Kumar had made a call to him with the request to reach at the bus stand Kangra. He stated that when he reached the bus stop Kangra on his motorcycle, he came to know that people, whose bags were crushed by the bus, were standing over there. He alleged that he offered them to compensate for the loss they had suffered, by paying Rs. 1,000/-. However, in the meantime, ASI Subhash Sharma and HC Sanjeev Kumar alias Sanju came in the uniform of traffic police. He alleged that Sanjeev told him that he will try to compromise the matter and asked him to give Rs. 2000/-. Complainant alleged that he told Sanjeev that when matter was being settled for Rs. 1000/-, why he should give Rs. 2000/-. Allegedly, Sanjeev got agitated and slapped the bus driver Ashwani. In the aforesaid backdrop, driver of the vehicle lodged FIR. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR No. 88 of 2015, as detailed herein above, came to be lodged against person namely Subhash Chand and HC Sanjeev Kumar, but after completion of investigation, police presented challan before Gram Panchayat Haler Kalan on 30.5.2015 for trial in FIR No.88 of 2015. Since both the FIRs, as detailed herein above, were lodged qua one incident and FIR No. 88 of 2015 was offshoot of FIR No. 87 of 2015, complainant in FIR No. 88 of 2015 filed an application under Section 43 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, for transfer of crimi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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