Himachal Pradesh High Court analyzing the power of a High Court to quash proceedings and FIRs under Section 482 of the CrPC, held that the proceedings shall be quashed if merit is not found and continuance of the proceedings would be an abuse of law.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners filed an instant petition for the quashing of FIR under Sections 341, 147, and 149 IPC and Section 174 of the Indian Railway Act, 1989 registered at Police Station Railway Police Station, Shimla, along with consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law. The FIR was lodged by the Station Master, alleging that around 250 persons, including the petitioners, sat on the railway track and obstructed the movement of a train, causing harassment to the persons traveling therein. The complainant alleged that the obstruction lasted for three and a half hours and that appropriate action in accordance with the law be taken against them. The petitioners have denied the allegation and stated that they had gathered on the railway track to lodge their protest against the death of a person due to the negligence of the railway administration. They claimed that they protested peacefully and disbursed after being assured by railway authorities that adequate steps would be taken for the construction of an overhead bridge.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that no specific allegation of wrongful confinement has been made against the petitioners in the FIR, and therefore, the case under Section 341 IPC is not specifically made out. He also argued that there is no evidence to suggest that the group of persons present on the spot formed an unlawful assembly and created a ruckus, as alleged under Sections 147 and 149 IPC. He contended that the petitioners and other protesters peacefully lodged their protest and left the spot after being assured by the authorities that steps would be taken to construct an overhead bridge.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned counsels for the respondents argued that the material available on record shows that railway traffic was obstructed for three and a half hours, which caused undue harassment to the passengers traveling on the train. He contended that since the passengers were not allowed to move beyond a certain point, they were wrongly confined by the agitators. He further argued that the petitioners and others gathered on the spot with the common objective of stopping vehicular traffic, which resulted in the undue harassment of the passengers, and therefore, they have been rightly booked under Sections 147 and 149 of the IPC. Additionally, he stated that there is sufficient evidence on record suggesting that the petitioners attempted to damage public property, and thus, they must be dealt with according to the law. The learned Additional Advocate General representing respondent No.2/State adopted the arguments of the Central Government Counsel and emphasized that given the gravity of the offense alleged against the petitioners, they do not deserve any leniency.
Observations of the Court:
The court discussed the use of inherent power by High Courts under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash proceedings in criminal cases. It examined various judgments and case laws to establish that the power to quash proceedings cannot be used mechanically in every case but only in extraordinary circumstances where continuing the prosecution would result in the abuse of the process of law and miscarriage of justice.
The court then went on to examine the specific case where the petitioners were accused of wrongful restraint, unlawful assembly, and causing damage to public property. The court analyzed the material available on record and notes that no specific complaint had been made about the wrongful confinement of passengers in a train, nor was there any allegation that the petitioners and others had formed an unlawful assembly and caused damage to public property.
The decision of the Court:
The court found that no case has been made out against the petitioners under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and hence allowed the petition, quashing the FIR and any consequent proceedings.
Case Title: Diwakar Dev Sharma & Ors. vs Government Railway Police Station & Anr.
Coram: Justice Sandeep Sharma
Case No.: Cr(MMO) No. 902 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh K. Sharma
Advocate for the Respondent:
Mr. Vir Bahadur Verma (For Respondent 1)
Mr. Anoop Rattan (For Respondent 2)
Mr. Rajan Kahol (For Respondent 2)
Mr. Vishal Panwar (For Respondent 2)
Mr. B.C. Verma (For Respondent 2)
Mr. Rahul Thakur (For Respondent 2)
Mr. Ravi Chauhan (For Respondent 2)
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments