Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dharam Singh & Others vs State Of H.P. & Another on 10 May, 2023
Author: Satyen Vaidya
Bench: Satyen Vaidya
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 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2023 20:43:25 :::CIS -2-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 ::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2023 20:43:25 :::CIS -3- 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)
::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2023 20:43:25 :::CIS