The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition, filed for quashing the FIR and the challan pending before the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate. The Court observed that There is no proof that the CCTV Camera is directed toward the house of the informant and it is merely a suspicion. Further, there is no proof that the petitioners/accused had contacted the informant to foster a personal relationship.
Brief Facts:
Petitioner No.1 Sumer Narwal constructed a house on the upper side of the informant’s house. The informant suspected that Sumer Narwal and his sons were watching her with a CCTV camera due to which she could not go to the roof of her house. Complaints were made to the police and the police had also asked Sumer Narwal to remove the CCTV camera. He was also asked to show the focus/footage in the control panel/mobile but Sumer Narwal refused to do so. Police registered an FIR and conducted the investigation. After the completion of the investigations, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court. The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of the FIR and the challan pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the ingredients of Section 354-D of IPC are not satisfied in the present case. The CCTV camera was installed for the protection of the petitioner’s property. The reports were made to the police regarding unauthorized construction which is evident from the entries in the daily diary. However, the police did not take any action which shows its biased attitude towards the petitioners. Hence, it was prayed that the FIR and present proceedings be quashed.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent admitted that the police conducted the investigation fairly. The petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable after filing of the charge sheet. The contents of the FIR prima facie satisfy the ingredients of Section 354-D of IPC. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent the abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. The Court can quash the F.I.R. if the allegations do not constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused. However, it is not permissible for it to conduct a mini-trial to arrive at such findings. There is no proof that the CCTV Camera is directed towards the house of the informant and it is merely a suspicion. Further, there is no proof that the petitioners/accused had contacted the informant to foster a personal relationship.
The Court observed that merely calling a woman on the phone does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 354-D unless there is an attempt to foster personal interaction. Since no offence punishable under Section 354 D of the IPC is made out as per the allegations in the FIR; therefore, no offence punishable under Section 2o1 of the IPC is made out against the petitioners.
The decision of the Court:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the FIR dated 11.10.2020, under Sections 354-D, and 201 of IPC, and consequent proceedings for the aforesaid Sections are ordered to be quashed qua the petitioners.
Case Title: Sumehar Chand Narwal & Ors. v State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Case No.: Cr. MMO No. 993 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Kumar
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. R. P. Singh
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/220503153746-woman-using-phone-stock.jpg?c=original
