Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 337 (HP)

Khayali Ram v. State of H. P.

2016-03-28

RAJIV SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Present petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 236 dated 5.11.2014 registered at Police Station, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. under sections 451, 447, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.3, Ghumarwin. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner No.1 and respondent-2- complainant are neighbours. On 5.11.2014 in the morning at about 10.00 A.M., respondent-2 complainant and deceased had advised Khayali Ram and his family members to construct pillars in their own land as they were trying to raise pillar in his land (complainant’s land). Deceased raised objection of pillar being raised by the petitioners on his land. Complainant and his family members saw Vinod Kumar, Sunil Kumar, Amarati Devi and Khyali Ram quarreling with the deceased. Vinod Kumar had given danda blows on the chest of deceased Brahm Dass while Sunil Kumar, Khyali Ram and Amarati Devi had also attacked him. Brahm Dass was taken to hospital where he was declared brought dead. On the basis of statement of respondent No.2 recorded under section 154 Cr.P.C., FIR was registered at Police Station, Ghumarwin. Site plan was prepared. Photographs were taken. Post-mortem of deceased Brahm Dass was conducted at Regional Hospital, Bilaspur. The viscera was sent for chemical analysis to RFSL, Mandi. Demarcation report was carried out by the Field Kanungo. It is placed on record. Danda was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement made by Vinod Kumar. 3. I have gone through FIR No.236/2014 dated 5.11.2014. 4. The contents of FIR prima facie discloses commission of offence. Demarcation report is dated 26.11.2014. According to the demarcation report dated 26.11.2014, the disputed land was found in possession of Brahm Dass. It shall be open to the petitioners to assail demarcation report in accordance with law during the course of trial. The allegations contained in the FIR make prima facie case against the accused when the complaint is read as a whole. The admissibility and reliability of the documents and the evidence produced by the prosecution cannot be looked into at this stage. 5. Petitioners had earlier approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR by way of Cr.M.M.O. No.67 of 2015. It was permitted to be withdrawn on 28.9.2015. 6. The admissibility and reliability of the documents and the evidence produced by the prosecution cannot be looked into at this stage. 5. Petitioners had earlier approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR by way of Cr.M.M.O. No.67 of 2015. It was permitted to be withdrawn on 28.9.2015. 6. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Subhash Sharma that a civil case has been converted into a criminal case. 7. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Soundaram versus P.K. Pounraj and another, (2014) 10 SCC 616 have held that power under section 482 has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent abuse of process of court and to secure ends of justice. Their Lordships have further held that it is only if, taking the allegations and complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. Their Lordships have held as under: “[13] It is well settled by this Court in catena of cases that the power Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, 1992 Supp1 SCC 335. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power Under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure Municipal Coron. of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, 1983 1 SCC 1 . An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance Vinod Raghuvanshi v. Ajay Arora, 2013 10 SCC 581 .” 8. of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, 1983 1 SCC 1 . An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance Vinod Raghuvanshi v. Ajay Arora, 2013 10 SCC 581 .” 8. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manik Taneja and another versus State of Karnataka and another, (2015) 7 SCC 423 have held that in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court should be extremely cautious to interfere with the investigation or trial of a criminal case and should not stall the investigation, save and except when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that the FIR does not disclose commission of offence, and that continuance of the criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of process of the court. Their Lordships have held as under: “[13] Of course, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court should be extremely cautious to interfere with the investigation or trial of a criminal case and should not stall the investigation, save except when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that the FIR does not disclose commission of offence and that continuance of the criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of process of the court. As noted earlier, the page created by the traffic police on the Facebook was a forum for the public to put forth their grievances. In our considered view, the appellants might have posted the comment online under the bona fide belief that it was within the permissible limits. As discussed earlier, even going by the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR, in our view, none of the ingredients of the alleged offences are satisfied. We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be unjust to allow the process of the court to be continued against the appellants and consequently the order of the High Court is liable to be set aside.” 9. Accordingly, in view of discussion and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. 10. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition.