The court held that an FIR alleging cognizable offences cannot be quashed merely based on claims of disability or false implication; the truth of allegations is to be assessed at trial.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR No. 207 of 2023 dated 18.12.2023, registered at Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant, Baryam Singh, was returning with the grass on 11.12.2023 at about 11:00/11:15 a.m. He saw that the accused, Swaroop Singh, was cutting the branches of the Teeu tree from his (informant’s) land. The informant told the accused that the tree belonged to him (the informant). Accused Swaroop Singh threatened to kill the informant with Darati. He also abused the informant. The informant started walking towards his house, and Swaroop Singh inflicted the blow by means of a stick on the informant’s head, left shoulder, right arm and right hand. Parveen Kumari and Himanshu (present petitioner) also came to the spot and started beating the informant. Mukhtiar Singh and other persons came to the spot after hearing the noise. Mukhtiar Singh snatched the stick from Swroop Singh. The matter was reported to the police. The medical examination of the informant was conducted, and the medical officer found grievous injuries which could have been caused by means of a blunt weapon. An F.I.R. was registered in the Police Station, and the investigation was conducted. Swaroop Singh had burnt the stick used in the incident. The police recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their version and filed the charge-sheet before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

3. Being aggrieved by the filing of chargesheet, the petitioner/accused, Himanshu, has filed the present petition asserting that he had nothing to do with the commission of the crime. He is specially abled, which is evident from the certificate issued by the competent authority. The Investigating Agency had not considered this aspect. The civil suits are pending between the informant and the petitioner’s father, and a false case was registered to wreak vengeance upon the petitioner. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the F.I.R. and consequential proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court be quashed.

4. I have heard Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent No.1/State.

5. Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, submitted that the petitioner is a specially abled person, which is evident from disability certificate (Annexure P-3) issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. The petitioner is unable to commit the crime, and a false case was registered against him. Hence, prayed that the present petition be allowed and F.I.R. and consequential proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court be quashed.

6. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the Court exercising inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence. The police investigated the matter and found truth in those allegations and filed the charge sheet before the Court. Th