Case Overview:
The case titled Hari Kishore Ray & Others vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. was heard in the Patna High Court under Criminal Writ Jurisdiction (Case No. 878 of 2021). The petitioners, namely Hari Kishore Ray, Ram Babu Ray, and Shyam Babu Ray, sought to quash the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against them in connection with the murder of Anil Ray, the husband of the informant, Prabha Devi. The case arose from Kathaiya Police Station (Muzaffarpur district), registered under Sections 302 (Punishment for Murder) and 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Arguments by the Petitioners:
The counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Manoj Kumar, argued that:
The FIR does not directly name the petitioners as those responsible for taking away the victim (Anil Ray) on a motorcycle. The informant only later claimed that she learned about the involvement of Petitioner No. 2.
The alleged motive behind the petitioners’ implication in the case is a property dispute. The petitioners had purchased land from the victim about nine months prior to his death, leading to suspicion that they were falsely implicated.
A newspaper report from Dainik Jagran (dated March 3, 2021) covering the incident did not mention the petitioners, reinforcing their claim that they were named later as an afterthought.
Arguments by the Respondents:
The Additional Public Prosecutor (A.P.P.), Mr. Saroj Sharma, representing the State, countered these claims by stating:
The FIR explicitly mentions the names of the petitioners, establishing a prima facie case against them.
The allegations made in the FIR indicate criminal conduct, necessitating a proper trial rather than summary dismissal at the initial stage.
Court’s Observations and Judgment:
The Hon’ble Justice Anil Kumar Sinha, after hearing both sides, made the following observations:
The FIR contains allegations that, on the surface, constitute a criminal offense.
At this stage, the court cannot assess the truthfulness of the allegations or the defense put forth by the petitioners.
Whether the claims in the FIR are true or false should be determined in a regular trial rather than at the stage of quashing proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P.C.).
Based on these considerations, the Patna High Court dismissed the petition, refusing to quash the FIR. The case is now set to proceed through the regular legal process, where evidence and testimony will determine the outcome.
Conclusion:
This case underscores the judiciary's cautious approach in handling requests for quashing FIRs, particularly in serious criminal matters like murder. The court reaffirmed that factual disputes should be resolved through trial rather than premature dismissal. The ruling serves as a precedent, highlighting that mere allegations of false implication, without concrete proof, are insufficient to quash an FIR at the initial stage.
Read the full judgement below ;
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTYjODc4IzIwMjEjMSNO-zHb5Ix1N5Ic=
