The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition, filed for quashing the FIR registered for the commission of offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 345-D, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Court observed that F.I.R. cannot be quashed simply because an F.I.R. was registered against the informant’s sister.
Brief Facts:
The informant was returning to his home on 27.05.2015 at about 8:30 p.m. He was waiting for some vehicle outside the Mountaineering Institute Alu. Accused XX, XXX, and XXXX gave him beatings. Neelmani reached the spot and tried to attack the informant with a sharp-edged weapon. He moved to the side and sustained an injury on his left thigh. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. It was asserted that the petitioner had lodged an F.I.R. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506 of IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), 2012, for outraging her modesty. The police arrested the informant. An F.I.R. was also registered against the informant for the commission of offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 345-D, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that F.I.R. was lodged as a counterblast to the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner to pressurize her. The FIR is based on the false facts and continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and F.I.R. be quashed.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the police conducted the investigation and collected sufficient material against the accused. The Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board is seized of the matter. Notice of accusation was rightly put to the petitioner. The truthfulness or otherwise of the F.I.R. is not to be seen at this stage but is to be seen at the time of the conclusion of the Trial. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that it was submitted that the present FIR is a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the petitioner; hence, the same be quashed. This submission cannot be accepted.
The Court observed that mala fides or bona fides cannot be seen at the stage of exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Thus, it is not permissible to quash the FIR on the ground that the same is mala fide. Even otherwise, it is undisputed that the relationship between the parties is not cordial and F.I.R. was lodged by the petitioner and informant against each other. Enmity is a double-edged weapon. While it furnishes the motive for false implication, it also furnishes a motive for the commission of a crime. Hence, no advantage can be derived from the enmity between the parties. The F.I.R. cannot be quashed simply because an F.I.R. was registered against the informant’s sister.
The decision of the Court:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, dismissing the petition, held that no circumstances justify the exercise of the extraordinary power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Case Title: XXX v State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Case No.: Cr. MMO No. 53 of 2016
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Prashant Sen
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
