AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 303 wordsPankaj Purohit, J
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge F.I.R. No.0172 of 2024 dated 30.08.2024, under Sections 196(1), 351(2), 351(3), 352 of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 6 of The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station Prem Nagar, District Dehradun.
The main ground for seeking quashing of the F.I.R., according to the petitioner, is that petitioner was mob lynched by respondent no.3 along with his accomplice and F.I.R. of the petitioner could have been lodged only after intervention of learned Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun when she filed an application under Section 173 of B.N.S.S. 2023.
It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged after so many days on 30.08.2024, in counter blast to the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner.
From perusal of both the F.I.Rs’, it transpires that there are allegations and counter allegations between the parties and the F.I.R.s’ sought to be quashed, in these proceedings, and it also transpires that prima facie, cognizable offence is made out. The truth of the incident could have been culled out only after proper investigation, therefore in the opinion of this Court, this is not a case where a case is made out for quashing of the F.I.R.
The impugned F.I.R. discloses a cognizable offence, in this view of the matter, this Court does not find it fit to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the F.I.R. in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 as it has been stated in para no.33 of the said judgment that “criminal proceedings cannot be scuttled in a manner like this.”
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.