Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1663 (HP)

Gurbachan Singh v. State of H. P.

2016-08-10

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant petition stands preferred by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 48 of 11.3.2014 registered under Sections 452, 147, 149, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code also for quashing of all pending consequential proceedings before the Court concerned. The petitioners herein are the relatives of one Gurpreet Kaur with whom one Vishal Sharma has solemnized marriage. Manoj Kumar is the brother of Vishal Sharma, the former is married to respondent No.2, the complainant herein. Both Vishal Sharma and Manoj Kumar reside together. On the ill-fated day the accused visited the matrimonial house of Gurpreet Kaur whereat they stand alleged to commit offences constituted under Sections 452, 147, 149, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. 2. For this Court being constrained to hold of it being a fit case for its exercising its inherent powers constituted under Section 482 Cr.P.C a bare reading of the FIR also the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer concerned prima-facie ought to make loud bespeakings of neither the ingredients of the offences constituted in the FIR standing satiated nor the evidentiary material collected by the Investigating Officer while his holding investigations qua the offences constituted in the FIR holding any legal worth. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles this Court would proceed to fathom from the FIR qua the ingredients of the offences constituted therein standing enunciated therein. A bare perusal of FIR discloses of the petitioners visiting the matrimonial house of one Gurpreet daughter of petitioners No.1 and 2. Even if the aforesaid visit of the petitioners to the matrimonial home of Gurpreet Kaur may not given the capacity of their holding a close relation with her prima- facie constitute any offence under Section 452 of I.P.C, nonetheless with further allegations standing constituted against them in the FIR qua theirs on entering the house of Vishal with whom Manoj Kumar jointly resides with respondent No.2, theirs proceeding to commit penal misdemeanors constituted under Sections 323 and 506 of IPC prima-facie renders them at this stage to be amenable to face trial before the learned Magistrate concerned qua the offences aforesaid. Also with the investigating Officer while holding investigations qua the offences constituted in the FIR his making efficacious recovery of dandas, the weapons of offence purportedly used by the petitioners/accused herein for inflicting simple injuries on the persons of victims besides with the relevant MLRs prepared qua the victims pronouncing the factum of theirs sustaining injuries on their person are cumulatively connotative of the petitioners/accused even if they lawfully ingressed the matrimonial house of Gurpreet Kaur theirs prima facie proceeding to thereat commit offences constituted under Sections 452, 147, 149, 323 and 506 of IPC. 3. Tritely it is not apt at this stage to determine the efficacy of recovery of dandas by the investigating officer at the instance of the accused nor it is apt at this stage to determine the probative tenacity of the MLRs prepared qua the victims of the assault. Contrarily the tenacity of the aforesaid factum is rather enjoined to be tested by the learned trial Court concerned wherebefore whom the petitioners/accused stand subjected to trial qua the offences constituted in the FIR. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused has submitted before this Court of there being a delay in the lodging of the FIR, yet the aforesaid contention has no vigor in the face of the Investigating Officer who is present today in the Court making a disclosure of the respondent No.2 in prompt succession to the ill-fated occurrence making a communication to the police station concerned whereupon a rapat stood entered in the daily diary. Given the prompt communication qua the occurrence standing made by respondent No.2 herein to the police station concerned renders inconsequential the recording in consonance therewith an FIR, with occurrence of a minimal delay of 2 days. 4. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. 5. However, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously within a period of four months. The learned Magistrate concerned is also directed to, on an appropriate application preferred before him seeking exemption qua female accused recording their personal appearance before him, render appropriate orders thereon. It is also open to the petitioners herein to, if advised, approach the appropriate Court at an appropriate stage for theirs being discharged qua the offences constituted in the FIR. 6. It is also open to the petitioners herein to, if advised, approach the appropriate Court at an appropriate stage for theirs being discharged qua the offences constituted in the FIR. 6. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.