Dharam Singh & Others vs State Of H.P. & Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 5519 HP

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                               Cr.MMO No. 47 of 2021
                        Date of decision : 10.5.2023.




                                                                .

    Dharam Singh & others                        ...Petitioners.
                               Versus
    State of H.P. & another                                   ...Respondents





    Coram:
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.





    Whether approved for reporting?1
    For the petitioners
                     r            :   Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate.

    For the respondent        :       Mr. R. S. Rawat, Addl. A.G., for
                                      respondent No.1.

                                      Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate,
                                      for respondent No.2.



    Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)

By way of instant petition, a prayer has been made

to quash FIR No. 86 of 2020 dated 11.10.2020, registered

under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC at Police

Station Bangana, District Una, H.P. along with consequential

criminal proceedings arising therefrom.

2. It is contended that no incident as reported to the

police by respondent No.2 has taken place. There was a civil

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

dispute between the parties and in order to settle the score,

respondent No.2 has lodged a false case against the petitioner.

.

3. The FIR was registered under Sections 341, 323,

504, 506 and 34 of IPC. Respondent No.2 had reported that on

11.10.2022, at about 6.00 p.m. he was returning home with

his buffalos, the petitioners stopped him near their house and

started beating him. He was also threatened with life. The

police investigated the FIR. On collection of evidence, the

"challan" has been presented. Since all the offences are triable

under H.P. Punchayati Raj Act, the case has been forwarded to

the concerned panchayat for adjudication.

4. It is more than settled that the FIR and criminal

proceedings can be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. in case on the face of it, no offence is made

out from the material on record. The contents of FIR reveal

such the allegations against the petitioners, which cannot be

brushed aside without testing them during trial. Petitioners

have not placed on record the entire record of investigation, in

absence of which, it cannot be inferred that no case is made

out against the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

reliance on an undertaking given by the mother of respondent

No.2 in the year 1986 to support his contention that

respondent No.2 has falsely implicated the petitioners due to

.

civil dispute inter-se the parties. Except Annexure P-4, no

other material has been placed on record to show that the civil

dispute in fact was going on between the parties. It cannot be

inferred from a document executed in 1986 that its

repercussions resounded in the year 2020.

5. Keeping in view the entirety of facts and

circumstances of the case, I find no merit in the petition and

the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if

any, also stand disposed of.

                                                     (Satyen Vaidya)
    10th May, 2023                                        Judge




         (kck)