The Jharkhand High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner accused of an attempt to murder and held that the High Court in the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC should not stifle a legitimate prosecution and in the present case, there was a direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed the alleged offence.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner filed the present petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings against him for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 34 of the IPC.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner was innocent and there was no direct allegation against him. It was further contended that the injuries sustained by the victim were simple in nature and the criminal proceedings should thus be quashed.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state referred to the judgment in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and ors. to argue that it is a settled principle of law that the Registration of F.I.R. is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary enquiry is permissible in such a situation. It was further contended that there was a direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and he was present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence and played an active role in attempting to murder the victim and the same was sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 307, 341, 323, 504/34 of the IPC.
Observations of the Court:
The court stated that there was a direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of being in furtherance of common intention along with the co-accused persons being armed with revolver and sword, attempting to murder the victim and intentionally insulting and thereby gave provocation to the informant party intending and knowing that such provocation would cause them to break public peace and commit other offence.
The court further referred to the judgment in Monica Kumar (Dr.) & Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. to state that the High Court in the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC should not stifle a legitimate prosecution and in the present case, there was a direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed the alleged offence.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition and rejected the prayer seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings.
Case Title: Rambriksh Prasad Kishri @ Rambriksh Prasad Keshrivs. State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No.1038 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Sushant Kr. Sinha and Mr. Rajiv N. Prasad
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
