Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Himanshu – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis of the complaint and injuries. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner claims false allegations due to disability. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. state argues the fir mentions a cognizable offence. (Para 6 , 12 , 18) |
| 4. legal criteria for quashing fir established. (Para 8 , 9 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. court's analysis of the evidence precludes quashing. (Para 10 , 11 , 19) |
| 6. conclusion: petition dismissed with no merit. (Para 21 , 22) |
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 threaten
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.
Quashing petition under SC/ST Act dismissed as FIR allegations of caste abuse at public place prima facie disclose offences; courts accept averments at face value without evidence appreciation, civil....
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 High Court cannot quash an FIR unless the allegations do not constitute an offence; the judiciary must respect the trial process and not supplant it with its judgment on the merits of the case.
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 cannot quash an FIR based on allegations of mala fides or insufficient evidence; it must determine if the FIR discloses a cognizable offence.
The High Court reaffirmed the stringent standard for quashing FIRs, emphasizing that allegations must disclose a cognizable offence and be supported by prima facie evidence.
The court emphasized that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly exercised and that the court should not interfere with the investigation unless no cognizable offence is disclosed. I....
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.
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
