Dismissing a petition for quashing of an FIR involving allegations of assault and criminal intimidation, the court held that once a chargesheet is filed, the High Court cannot quash the FIR to decide on merits, and the allegations prima facie constitute a cognizable offence.
Petition for quashing of FIR No. 61/2014 was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 56 of 2015. Judgement reserved on: 7.5.2015. Date of decision: 11.5.2015.
Lashkari Ram …… Petitioner.
Vs.
State of H.P. & anr. ….. Respondents
Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Virender Kumar Verma, Ms. Meenakshi Sharma and Mr. Rupinder Singh, Addl. A.Gs. for respondent No. 1. Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Pyare Lal, HC No. 21, Police Station, Bharari, Distt. Bilaspur.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No. 61/2014 dated 9.6.2014, under sections 354, 451, 506 IPC registered against him at Police Station, Bharari, District Bilaspur, H.P.
2. It is contended that because of a civil dispute, inter se, the parties, a false case has been filed against the petitioner.
3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent regarding the very maintainability of this petition in view of final report having been presented before the Magistrate. In support
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
…2…
of his contention, the respondent has relied upon a judgement of this court in Cr.MMO No. 183 of 2014 titled Nancy Bhatt & another vs. State of H.P. decided on 6.4.2015 , where like in the present case the final report had been presented and this court held as follows:-
“2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents that once the FIR has culminated in chargesheet, the present petition has been rendered infructuous, because it is not the FIR but the chargesheet which forms the basis of criminal trial.
“2. Heard learned counsel for the State as well as the contesting respondent. We are afraid that the High Court was not right in quashing the First Information Report on the plea that the said respondent had no role to play and was never the custodian of the paddy in question. In fact it was averred in the counter-affidavit filed in the High Court that the said respondent had acted in collusion with Kashmira Singh resulting in the latter misappropriating the paddy in question. At the relevant point of time the respondent concerned, it is alleged, was in overall charge of the Government Seed Farm, Trehan. This allegation forms the basis of the involvement of the respondent concerned. The High Court was, therefore, wrong in saying that the respondent concerned had no role to play. A specific role is assigned to him, it may be proved or may fail. In any case, pursuant to the First Information Report the investigation was undertaken and a charge sheet or a police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed in the court. If the investigation papers annexed to the charge sheet do not disclose the commission of any crime by the respondent concerned, it would be open to the court to refuse to frame a charge, but quashing of the First Information Report was not permissible.
another (1996) 2 SCC 199, the Supreme Court after refusing to quash the FIR, held that when a chargesheet was filed in the competent Court, it is that Court alone which will then deal with the case on merits, in accordance with law.
…3…
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that once the dispute is essentially of a civil nature and is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then court has every jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings irrespective of its stage. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgement of
…4…
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (2013) 11 SCC 673, wherein it was held as
follows:-
“12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court.”
5. There is no quarrel with the proposition as canvassed by Sh. Subhash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner but the same will only apply in case the dispute would have been predominately of a civil nature, but then the allegations constituting the offence, under sections 354, 451 and 506 IPC can by no stretch of imagination be termed to be constituting an offence of civil nature.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet Batra’s case (supra) was seized of the matter which involved monetary consideration and a civil suit making similar grievance had already been filed and was pending adjudication. It is in this background that the observations as reproduced hereinabove were made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Whereas in the present case there are
…5…
specific allegations against the petitioner which when taken on the face value, constitute an offence punishable under law.
7. The prosecutrix in her statement under section 154 Cr.P.C. has specifically stated that on 9.6.2014 at about 11 a.m. when she was all alone in the courtyard and washing clothes then the petitioner came there and threatened her that she should advise her husband not to set his eyes on the land or else he alongwith his son would kill him. Thereafter with the bad intention he caught hold of the prosecutrix and pushed her because of which she sustained injuries on her left leg as the same struck against the stairs resulting in further injuries to her knee. This statement of the prosecutrix is further corroborated by the Medico Legal Certificates (MLCs).
8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that because the prosecutrix is a Staff Nurse, therefore, she has manipulated the MLCs and it was on the basis of such false documents that petitioner is sought to be involved in the present case.
9. The mere fact that prosecutrix is working as Staff Nurse would not in itself establish that MLCs are in any way false, however, these are the matters which are required to be considered during the course of the trial and at present the court is only required to consider the allegations as contained in the First Information Report and the final report, which as observed earlier, prima-facie, indicate and make out the commission of offence for which the petitioner has been charged.
…6…
10. In addition to the aforesaid, it would be noticed that after the investigation, the petitioner has not been charged with for lesser offence, but has been charged with this very offence for which he had been booked at the time of registration of FIR. That apart, the petitioner cannot take any advantage of the pendency of civil proceedings, because admittedly the civil proceedings were instituted after the registration of the FIR, that too, at the instance of the opposite party. The FIR in question was registered on 9.6.2014 while the civil suit came to be filed exactly after one month on 8.7.2014.
11. Having said so, I find no merit in this petition and the
same is dismissed.
May 11, 2015. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ), ( Hem ) Judge.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal proceeding can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.PC after a final report (chargesheet) is filed in the absence of allegations purely constituting a civil dispute.
Whether the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose the commission of a non-compoundable offence under sections 354, 451, and 506 IPC.
Whether the High Court must primarily consider matters of merit to determine the maintainability of a petition for quashing an FIR when a chargesheet subsists.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Cr.MMO No. 183 of 2014 Nancy Bhatt & another vs. State of H.P.Referred¶13
State of Punjab vs. Dharam Vir Singh JethiExplained¶16
State of Punjab vs. Dharam Vir Singh Jethi 1994 SCC (Cri.) 500 · Who else cites this
Vineet Narain and others vs. Union of IndiaExplained¶18
Vineet Narain and others vs. Union of India and another (1996) 2 SCC 199 · Who else cites this
Anukul Chandra Pradhan vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶21
Anukul Chandra Pradhan vs. Union of India and others (1996) 6 SCC 354 · Who else cites this
Jakia Nasim Ahesan and another vs. State of GujaratReferred¶21
Jakia Nasim Ahesan and another vs. State of Gujarat and others (2011) 12 SCC 302 · Who else cites this
Paramjeet Batra vs. State of UttarakhandDistinguished¶27
Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (2013) 11 SCC 673 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Lashkari Ram
State of H.P.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
