State of Haryana Vs. Bhim Sain & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 669 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 393/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 393/2000)
Petitioner: State of Haryana
Respondent: Bhim Sain & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 669 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 393/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 393/2000)
Judges: M.B. SHAH & Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 16, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Sections 482, 154 – FIR – Quashing of – Ground that allegations were absurd. Held that it was not the stage to quash FIR.
(Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
4. Without there being any discussion with regard to the averments made in the complaint, the High Court quashed the FIR on the ground that the allegations made against four persons were absurd. In our view, this reason given by the High Court is without considering the FIR lodged at the behest of the father of the victim. In any case, this was not the stage for quashing the FIR as it is open to the investigating officer to file the appropriate report or chargesheet after investigation on the basis of the allegations made in the FIR.
5. In this view of the matter, the impugned order, dated 13.7.1999, passed in Crl. Misc. No. 28820/M/1998 is quashed and set aside. However, it is directed that in case chargesheet is submitted against respondent nos. 3 to 6, i.e., Dalip, Inder Kumar, Harbans Singh and Giano Devi, it would be open to them to file proper application before the trial court for grant of exemption from personal appearance and the trial court would grant the same on the conditions that they would not dispute their identity as particular accused in that case, a Counsel on their behalf will be present on such posting dates; and they would make themselves available on any date when their presence is needed in that case. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
4. Without there being any discussion with regard to the averments made in the complaint, the High Court quashed the FIR on the ground that the allegations made against four persons were absurd. In our view, this reason given by the High Court is without considering the FIR lodged at the behest of the father of the victim. In any case, this was not the stage for quashing the FIR as it is open to the investigating officer to file the appropriate report or chargesheet after investigation on the basis of the allegations made in the FIR.
5. In this view of the matter, the impugned order, dated 13.7.1999, passed in Crl. Misc. No. 28820/M/1998 is quashed and set aside. However, it is directed that in case chargesheet is submitted against respondent nos. 3 to 6, i.e., Dalip, Inder Kumar, Harbans Singh and Giano Devi, it would be open to them to file proper application before the trial court for grant of exemption from personal appearance and the trial court would grant the same on the conditions that they would not dispute their identity as particular accused in that case, a Counsel on their behalf will be present on such posting dates; and they would make themselves available on any date when their presence is needed in that case. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
