Quashing of cognizance under IPC Sections due to lack of specific allegations against petitioners, affirming settlement principles.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 09-12-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners have preferred application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 10.01.2024 passed by the learned A.C.J.M.-1^st, Danapur in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 1069 of 2023, by which learned A.C.J.M.-1^st, Danapur has taken cognizance of offence under Section s 147 , 148, 149, 341, 323, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, petitioner along with other accused persons, had assaulted the informant causing injuries. Specific allegation against petitioners is that they had pelted stone and bricks from the rooftop, upon the informant.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that petitioners and informant side are agnates and due to enmity with respect to the share in mall and shop, the ugly incidence took place, in which, both the parties indulged in free fight causing injury to either side. He further submitted that from very perusal of the FIR, it is evident that general and omnibus allegation has been levelled against the petitioner, who are female members of the same family and no case is made out against them and if they are allowed to face prosecution, the same will be abuse of process of law. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied upon paragraph no. 102 (2) of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of The State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp

1 SCC 335

5. Per contra, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there is no infirmity in the order taking cognizance against the petitioners, who were active member of the mob and they, with a common intention to cause injury, had given effect to the incidence, in which, several persons including the informant sustained grievous injury. The cognizance has been taken on the basis of materials, which have come in course of investigation and interfering with the trial at this stage is unwarranted.

6. Heard the parties.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation contained in the FIR, I find that specific allegation has been made against other family members of the petitioners but the allegation against these petitioners is that they together, had started pelting stone on the informant and his family members causing injury to them. In absence of any specific allegation against the petitioners, I don't find that any case under Section s 147 , 148, 149, 341, 323, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. At the same time, in absence of cognizance having been taken under Section 324, it cannot be said that there was common intention to kill the informant to attract the allegation under Section 307 .

8. In this regard, I find it apt to take note of the observation made by the Apex Court recently in case of Naushey Ali & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78 in para-11 to 20, which are reproduced hereinafter:

“11. Before we apply this judgment to the facts, it will be worthwhile to recall the observations of Sikri, J. in Narinder Singh (supra):-

"26. Having said so, we would hasten to add that though it is a serious offence as the accused person(s) attempted to take the life of another person/victim, at the same time the court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever there is a quarrel between the partie