Sheela Devi & Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 5481 HP

                                                                           .
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA





                                             Cr.MMO No.452 of 2023
                                             Decided on: 10.05.2023





    Sheela Devi & others                                      ....Petitioners.

                      Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh & others                        ...Respondents.

    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

    Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes

    For the petitioners :           Mr. Ashok Kumar Thakur, Advocate.

    For the respondents :           M/s Jitender Sharma, Tejasvi Sharma,
                                    Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate


                                    Generals, with Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy
                                    Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to
                                    3­State.




    Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for

quashing of FIR No.140 of 2021, dated 06.09.2021, registered under

Sections 325, 447, 504, 506, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, at Police Station Indora, District Kangra, H.P., on the

ground that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the said

case at the behest of the private respondent, who happens to be the

complainant.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that

no case is made out against the petitioners and the FIR in fact has

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

.

been lodged just to cause harassment to the petitioners and the

same is evident from the fact that there was seven days delay even in

lodging of the FIR. Learned counsel further submitted that even the

perusal of the final investigation report would demonstrate that no

offence as alleged to have been committed by the petitioners is in

3.

r to fact made out and therefore, it would be in the interest of justice in

case present petition is allowed by quashing the FIR.

Learned Additional Advocate General, who is appearing

for respondents No.1 to 3, has submitted that the present petition is

nothing, but an abuse of the process of law, for the reason that as

now the final report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure

Code stands filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st

Class, Indora, District Kangra, H.P., it is for the said Court to take

cognizance of the same and take a call as to whether any offences as

alleged to have been committed by the petitioners are made out or

not and merit of the FIR or Final Investigation Report be not gone

into by this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure

Code.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as well as

learned Additional Advocate General, this Court is of the considered

view that the objection raised by the State is worthy of merit.

5. It is a matter of record that an FIR has been lodged

against the petitioners and after the completion of the investigation,

.

now the final report stands submitted to the Court of learned

Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Indora, District Kangra, H.P.

Therefore, it is for the said Court to go into the final report, filed

under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code and take a call as

to whether the petitioners are to be discharged or they should be

made to face the trial. The petitioners have a right to make their

submissions at the stage of framing of charges and this Court in

exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal

Procedure Code, cannot be called upon to act as the Court of

Judicial Magistrate and scrutinize the final report submitted under

Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code and then decide as to

whether the petitioners be discharged or they should be made to face

the trial.

6. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, as the present

petition is not worthy of issuance of notice, the same is dismissed in

limine. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed

of.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 10, 2023 (Rishi)