Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Baliram (aged 82), Prayagbai (aged 80), and Parasram (aged 28), filed a criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the judgment and order dated 19.6.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basmat, below Exh. 24 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2012. The case arose from a complaint lodged by respondent no.2, Radhabai, on 12.9.2011, alleging that on that day at about 8.00 p.m., while she and her husband Kishan were sleeping in the courtyard, petitioner no.1 Baliram came and complained about rainwater from their tin shed roof falling into his house and abused them. Subsequently, Prakash, son of petitioner no.1, arrived with an iron rod and inflicted blows on Kishan's head, ears, right hand, and legs, causing a fracture to his right hand. The petitioners were alleged to have assaulted the informant and her husband in furtherance of common intention. The police filed a charge-sheet under Sections 307, 324, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC. The petitioners argued that the allegations did not disclose any specific overt act against them and that the essential ingredients of the offences were missing. The High Court examined the FIR and charge-sheet and found that the only specific allegation of assault with an iron rod was against Prakash, not the petitioners. The court held that the allegations against the petitioners were vague and did not make out a prima facie case for the offences charged. The court observed that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of court. Accordingly, the court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners only, while clarifying that the trial against the co-accused Prakash would continue. The petition was allowed in part.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC, Article 227 Constitution - Inherent powers - Court can quash proceedings if allegations do not disclose essential ingredients of offence or are frivolous/vexatious - Held that where complaint lacks specific overt acts against particular accused and fails to make out prima facie case, continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process (Paras 5-8). B) Indian Penal Code - Attempt to Murder - Section 307 IPC - Essential ingredients - Intention to cause death or knowledge that act is likely to cause death - Held that mere allegation of assault with iron rod causing fracture does not attract Section 307 in absence of evidence of intention to kill or nature of injury (Para 7). C) Indian Penal Code - Assault - Section 324 IPC - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon - Held that where no specific role is attributed to petitioners and only co-accused is alleged to have used weapon, charge under Section 324 cannot be sustained against petitioners (Para 7). D) Indian Penal Code - Criminal Intimidation - Sections 504, 506 IPC - Essential ingredients - Intentional insult and threat - Held that vague allegations of abuse without specific words or threats do not make out offence under these sections (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners for offences under Sections 307, 324, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC should be quashed for lack of prima facie case and abuse of process of court.
Final Decision
The petition is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 19.6.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basmat, below Exh. 24 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2012 is quashed and set aside. The proceedings in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2012 are quashed against the petitioners only. The trial against the co-accused Prakash shall continue.
Law Points
- Quashing of criminal proceedings
- Section 482 CrPC
- Article 227 Constitution
- prima facie case
- essential ingredients of offence
- abuse of process of court
