The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition, filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the F.I.R. dated 06.10.2019 and the final report pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. The Court observed that the proceedings can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint and the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted.
Brief Facts:
It has been asserted that F.I.R. was registered on the complaint of respondent no. 2, who stated that the petitioner had made some remarks against her. The F.I.R. is nothing but an abuse of the process of law to obstruct the petitioner and the adjoining inhabitants from widening the jeepable road existing on the road adjacent to the land of informant No.2. One road exists on the spot touching the house of the Lachhi Ram. Respondent No.2 and her family members tried to obstruct it. The petitioner and other neighbors objected to the same. It was asserted that the F.I.R. was registered to prevent them from raising the objection.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that F.I.R. is an abuse of process of the Court. A civil dispute is pending between the parties and F.I.R. was lodged to pressure the petitioner and neighbors to restrain them from obstructing the illegal acts of respondent no.2. The allegations contained in the F.I.R. do not constitute the commission of a cognizable offense.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the police conducted the investigation and filed a charge sheet against the petitioner before the Learned Trial Court. A cognizable offense was found to have been committed as per the investigation. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The allegations are required to be proved during the trial based on evidence led before the Court. It was submitted that the police had conducted the investigations and presented the challan. Hence, this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
The Court observed that this submission is not acceptable. The High Court will continue to exercise the power even if the charge sheet has been filed. The Court said that the remarks uttered by the petitioner were sexually colored as they intended to refer to the previous incident and conveyed that the petitioner would similarly touch respondent no.2 as she was touched by Lachhi Ram. Therefore, prima facie offences punishable under Section 354 A(1)(iv) and Section 509 of IPC are made out against the petitioner.
On the issue of considering new material, the Court said that the proceedings can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint and the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. It is not permissible to add or subtract anything. It is not permissible to look into the material filed by the petitioner with the petition and the Court has to rely upon the complaint filed before the Magistrate.
The decision of the Court:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the submission that the FIR does not disclose the commission of the cognizable offense is not acceptable and the same cannot be quashed.
Case Title: Arvind Sharma v State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Kainthala
Case no.: Cr. MMO No. 289 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sudhir Thakur
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Jitender Sharma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
