OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present petitions for quashing of FIR No. 113/16 dated 23 rd December 2016, registered in Police Station Kandaghat, District Solan for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 341, 323, and 201 read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sec. 3 (1) (s) (r) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) (SC ST) Act and Sec. 7 (1) (b) of Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act, 1855 and the consequential proceedings pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (JMFC), Kandaghat. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petitions are that the informant made a complaint to the police, asserting that he was a Ward Member of the Gram Panchayat, Basha. He was returning to his home on 23 rd December 2016 at about 6:45 PM in his vehicle. When he reached near the house of accused Chatter Singh, he found that Chatter Singh was standing on the road. He stopped the informant's vehicle and started abusing him. He asked the informant to come out of the vehicle. The informant asked Chattar Singh as to what the matter was. Accused Sheela Devi, wife of Chattar Singh, came to the spot armed with a stick. They started beating the informant with a stick. Joginder Kumar and his wife, Kalpana Devi, came to the spot after hearing the informant's cries. Chattar Singh and his wife, Sheela Devi, said that the informant was a Koli worth two Cowries and how he dared to take the vehicle from the area of Chattar Singh. Lal Chand and Ishwar Dutt also came to the spot and rescued him and Joginder Singh from Chattar Singh and his wife, Sheela Devi. Chattar Singh and his wife went from the spot after abusing the informant. They told the informant that he had no right to use the passage in the area. He was worth two paisa, and why he had visited Ward No. 03. Chattar Singh and his son, Om Prakash, used to abuse the informant by calling him Koli. When the informant tried to leave the spot in his vehicle, Om Prakash and Sunil Kumar stopped his vehicle. They put two bags of sand on the road and prevented the informant from proceeding further. They abused the informant in the name of his caste. Accused Chattar Singh does not allow the informant to use the passage near his house because he belongs to a Scheduled Caste. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police filed the chargesheet before the learned JMFC, Kandaghat, after the completion of the investigation.

(3.) Aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and initiation of the proceedings before learned JMFC Kandaghat, the petitioners/accused have filed two separate petitions for quashing the FIR. It has been asserted that the informant lodged a false and fabricated complaint by distorting the facts. A reading of the FIR does not disclose the commission of any offence. The petitioners did not abuse the informant, nor did they abuse him by his caste name. The FIR was lodged to harass the petitioners and to force them to allow the Gram Panchayat, Basha, to construct a Link Road through their land. The petitioners had objected to the construction of the Link Road, and the Panchayat had also passed a Resolution rejecting the objections of the petitioners. The petitioners have also filed a Civil Suit, which was decreed by learned Civil Judge Kandaghat, Solan on 16/11/2016. The petitioners had earlier filed a petitions under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR, which was withdrawn by them. The grounds taken in the present petition are different and independent of the contentions raised in the earlier petition. Learned JMFC had wrongly committed the case to the learned Special Judge, Solan. The allegations made in the FIR are false. The informant and witnesses are inimical towards the petitioners and their family members. They have several litigations amongst themselves. The statements of the witnesses are completely silent regarding the uttering of the words in public view. The presence of the petitioners on the spot was not established by the informant at the time of the incident. The evidence collected by the police does not support the allegations of the informant regarding the obstruction caused to his vehicle. The police did not investigate the matter fairly. The judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge regarding the petitioner's land were deliberately not collected by the police; hence, the petition.