Harmanpreet Singh And Ors vs State Of H.P. And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 89 HP

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                                   Cr.MMO No. 287 of 2020
                                                   Reserved on 28.12.2020
                                                 Date of Decision: 4.1.2021




                                                                        .
    ______________________________ _______________________________________





                                           [




    Harmanpreet Singh and Ors.                                               .........Petitioners
                                                   Versus





    State of H.P. and Anr.                                           . ...........Respondents.

    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting1? Yes.





    For the petitioners:      Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate.
    For the respondents:      Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Additional Advocate
                              General, for the respondent-State.
                       r      Mr. Bhupender Ahuja, Advocate, for respondent
                              No.2.

    ___________________________________________________________________________
    Sandeep Sharma, J.

Petitioners herein have approached this Court in the instant

proceedings filed under Section 482 Cr.PC., for quashing of FIR No. 159 of

2019 dated 30.12.2019, registered at PS Fatehpur, District Kangra, under

Sections 302 and 304 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC as well as

consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the competent court of

law.

2. For having bird's eye view, facts which led to filing of FIR

sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings are that on 30.12.2019,

respondent-complainant No.2 Raghubir Singh (herein after referred to as

the complainant) lodged FIR at PS Fatehpur District Kangra, alleging

Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?

therein that on 29.12.2019, while he alongwith his brother and father was

present at his fish shop at Khatiyad, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P, 5-

6 persons i.e. petitioners No. 1 to 4 and person namely Narender Singh,

.

driver of the vehicle bearing No. PB07BH8139 stopped at their shop for

eating/having fried fish. Complainant alleged that subsequently, some

altercation took place inter-se his father, present petitioners as well as

person namely Narender Singh on account of less payment. Complainant

alleged that though the petitioners as well as driver of aforesaid vehicle

ate fish amounting to Rs. 2,000/-, but they were only ready and willing to

give sum of Rs. 1500/- and as such, altercation took place inter-se them

and his father. Complainant alleged that present petitioners including the

driver namely Narender Singh after having seen people gathering at the

shop made an attempt to run away and in that process, driver of the

vehicle rashly and negligently turned his vehicle, as a consequence of

which, his father Dhanni Ram, suffered injuries and was declared brought

dead when taken to the hospital. On the basis of aforesaid statement of

complainant under Section 154 Cr.PC, police lodged FIR under Section 304

read with Section 34 IPC. Subsequently on 30.12.2019, police recorded

supplementary statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.PC,

wherein he allegedly disclosed to the police that on 29.12.2019 at around

7 PM, six young boys from Punjab namely Narender Singh, Harnampreet,

Harjot Singh, Harwinder Singh, Sukhjit Singh and Sukhwinder Singh, all

residents of Punjab came to their Dhaba for having fish and they

consumed 1½ kg fish and ½ kg curry with rice. Complainant alleged that

since persons named hereinabove were ready to pay Rs.1500/- only

against the bill of Rs. 2000/-, altercation took place between her father

.

and the persons. Complainant alleged in the supplementary statement

that person named herein above started arguing and pushing him as well

as his father and they headed towards their vehicle. He stated that his

father came in front of the vehicle demanding payment, but vehicle was

driven by person namely Narender Singh, as a consequence of which, his

father was dragged alongwith vehicle for about 25-30 feet. He alleged

that all the occupants of the vehicle in question had an intention to kill his

father Dhani Ram. On the basis of aforesaid supplementary statement

made by the complainant, case under Section 302 IPC read with Section

34 IPC came to be initiated against the petitioners as well as person

namely Narender Singh instead of 304 IPC. After completion of

investigation, police has filed challan in the competent court of law i.e.

Annexure P-3, perusal whereof clearly reveals that initially complainant

stated before the police while recording his statement under Section 154

Cr.PC that alleged incident happened on account of rash and negligent

driving of the driver namely Narender Singh and as such, case under

Section 304 read with Section 34 of IPC came to be registered, but

subsequently on 30.12.2019, police after having taken note of the

supplementary statement of the complainant, wherein he allegedly

claimed before the police that occupants of vehicle in question ran over

the vehicle in question over his father with an intention to kill him registered

case under Section 302 IPC against all the occupants of the vehicle.

Petitioners, who were admittedly occupants of the vehicle involved in the

.

incident, have approached this Court in the instant proceedings for

quashing of FIR on the ground that no case much less under Section 302

IPC read with Section 34 IPC, is made out against them and they have

been falsely implicated in the case.

3. This Court having taken note of the averments contained in

the petition as well as documents annexed therewith issued notice to the

respondents with direction to file reply. Both respondents have filed their

replies. Respondent No.2-complainant in his reply/affidavit dated

5.11.2020 while admitting factum with regard to lodging of FIR sought to

be quashed in the instant proceedings submitted that initial version given

by him at the time of lodging of FIR is correct and supplementary

statement given by him to the police on 30.12.2019 was misconstrued by

the police, as a consequence of which, great prejudice has been caused

to the petitioners. He stated in the affidavit that he being

complainant/informant had no such intention to cause greater injury to

the accused than the act which is mentioned in the FIR. In para-3 of the

aforesaid affidavit, which is available at page 71 of the paper book,

respondent complainant has stated as under;

"3. That it is humbly submitted that the deponent and his family were in grave and sudden shock and wailing heavily on the sudden demise of his father and were in

no position to understand because of sudden death and murmuring in the local dialects that " Budda maarita ghassiti ke, kuchli dita gadia thaale" The supplementary statement recorded by the I.O. was

.

misconstrued and mis-communicated and caused the mis-understanding with the I.O. in the investigation which resulted in a graver effect. The

complainant/informant has no such intention to cause great injury to the accused then the act which is mentioned in the FIR.

This short affidavit/ reply have been explained to me

vernacular as well as in a local dialect which I understood completely and no fraud, coercion, undue influence and threat is given to me to file the same

affidavit in this Hon'ble Court. The cutting and mistake if

any has been verified by me.

4. Having taken note of the aforesaid admission/statement

made by the respondent-complainant in his supplementary affidavit, this

court deemed it necessary to cause presence of respondent No.2 in the court

so that correctness and genuineness of the affidavit filed on his behalf could

be ascertained. Pursuant to order dated 22.12.2020, respondent-complainant

came present before this court alongwith his advocate Mr. Bhupender Ahuja,

who also filed power of attorney on his behalf. Respondent-complainant

while fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of short reply/affidavit

on his behalf stated on oath before this Court that on 29.12.2019, some

altercation took place inter-se his father and petitioners on account of less

payment. He stated that since the petitioner after having made payment of

Rs. 1500/- made an attempt to flee from the shop, they were stopped by his

father, but driver of the vehicle namely Narender Singh rashly and negligently

turned the vehicle, as a consequence of which, his father fell down and

ultimately succumbed to his injuries. He stated before this Court that he had

.

narrated the aforesaid facts to the police on 29.12.2019, as a result of which,

case under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the IPC was registered, but

subsequently on 30.12.2019, police recorded his supplementary statement,

wherein he had given the same version as was given at the time of lodging of

FIR, but police misconstrued his statement and wrongly registered case under

Section 302 IPC against the petitioners as well as driver of the vehicle. He

stated before this Court that it was wrongly recorded in his supplementary

statement that occupants of the vehicle in question ran over the vehicle over

his father with an intention to kill him, whereas his father sustained injuries after

being hit by vehicle being driven by Narender Singh. He stated that

petitioners herein at no point of time caused any harm to his deceased

father. He stated that after having received notice in the instant proceedings

from the court, he has filed short reply/affidavit stating therein that contents of

the FIR recorded at his behest on 29.12.2019 are correct and supplementary

statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC on 30.12.2019 has been

misconstrued by the police. Complainant deposed before this Court that he

has specifically stated in his short reply/affidavit that complainant/informant

had no such intention to cause greater injury to the accused than what is

mentioned in the FIR. Lastly, respondent-complainant on oath stated before

this Court that since petitioners were occupants of the vehicle being driven by

the person namely Narender Singh and no harm was caused by them to his

father during unfortunate incident, he shall have no objection in case prayer

made on their behalf for quashing of FIR is accepted.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused

.

the records of the case.

6. Careful perusal of contents of FIR sought to be quashed in

the instant proceedings, short/reply filed by the complainant as well as

statement of the complainant recorded on oath before this Court, reveals

that initially on 29.12.2019, complainant while getting his statement

recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC., had nowhere stated that the

occupants of the vehicle in question ran over their vehicle over his father

with an intention to kill him, rather he very categorically stated that

occupants of vehicle made an attempt to flee from the spot after having

seen people gathering at the shop, but when they were stopped by his

father, driver of the vehicle namely Narender Singh wrongly, rashly and

negligent turned the vehicle, as a consequence of which, his father fell

down and sustained serious injuries. There is no whisper, if any, with regard

to intention of the occupants of the vehicle to cause injuries, if any, to the

father of the complainant, rather complainant specifically alleged

that accused after having paid sum of Rs. 1500/- made an attempt to

flee from the spot, but his father while attempting to stop the occupants

of the vehicle suffered injuries and died. If supplementary statement

of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.PC, is perused in its

entirety, it though suggests that complainant had got recorded to the

police that occupants of the vehicle in question ran over their vehicle over

his father with an intention to kill him, but such statement of him, if is

examined/ analyzed in light of short reply/affidavit as well as statement

.

made before this Court on oath, this Court finds reason to

presume/believe that supplementary statement of the complainant

recorded by the police on 30.12.2019 has been misconstrued. Otherwise

also, if subsequent version put forth by way of supplementary statement

recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC is presumed to be correct, it is not

understood that what prevented the respondent-complainant to state such

facts at the time of getting his statement recorded under Section 154

Cr.PC, on the basis of which, FIR on 29.12.2019 came to be lodged. In the

aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as have been

taken note herein above, prayer made on behalf of the petitioners, who

were merely occupants of the vehicle in question deserves to be

considered, but before considering such prayer of them, this Court deems

it necessary to discuss /elaborate the scope and competence of this

Court to quash the FIR as well as criminal proceedings while exercising

power under Section 482 Cr.PC.

7. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled

State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and others, 1977 (2) SCC 699, held

that High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC is entitled

to quash the proceedings, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the

proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or

that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.

8. Subsequently, in case titled State of Haryana and others vs.

.

Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Apex Court

while elaborately discussing the scope and competence of High Court to

quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC laid down certain

principles governing the jurisdiction of High Court to exercise its power.

After passing of aforesaid judgment, issue with regard to exercise of

power under Section 482 Cr.PC, again came to be considered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in case bearing Criminal Appeal No.577 of 2017

(arising out of SLP (CrL.) No. 287 of 2017) titled Vineet Kumar and Ors. v.

State of U.P. and Anr., wherein it has been held that saving of the High

Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to

achieve a salutary public purpose i.e. court proceedings ought not to be

permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of

Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, relying upon its earlier judgment titled as Rajiv

Thapar and Ors v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, reiterated that

High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC., to quash the

proceedings against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the

stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charge, but such

power must always be used with caution, care and circumspection. In the

aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court concluded that while

- 10 -

exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., Court

exercising such power must be fully satisfied that the material produced by

the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their

.

defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts and the

material adduced on record itself overrule the veracity of the allegations

contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant.

Besides above, the Hon'ble Apex Court further held that material relied

upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable

person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as

false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would

persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash

such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the

court, and secure the ends of justice. In the aforesaid judgment titled as

Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, the Hon'ble Apex

Court has held as under:-

"22. The proposition of law, pertaining to quashing of criminal proceedings, initiated against an accused by a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Cr.P.C.") has been dealt with by

this Court in Rajiv Thapar & Ors. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor wherein this Court inter alia held as under: (2013) 3 SCC 330, paras 29-

30)

29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested

- 11 -

in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to

.

lead evidence. Such a determination must always

be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the

conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material

produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the

necessity of recording any evidence. For this the

material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the

actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal

proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.

30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing,

raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-

30.1 Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

30.2 Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject

- 12 -

and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the

.

accusations as false.

30.3 Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be

justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

30.4 Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not

serve the ends of justice?

30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 r of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power,

besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude

in the conviction of the accused."

10. It is quite apparent from the bare perusal of aforesaid

judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time that

where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or

where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for

wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him/her

due to private and personal grudge, High Court while exercising power

under Section 482 Cr.PC can proceed to quash the proceedings.

11. Sh. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General,

contended that since investigating agency after having completed

investigation has already filed challan under Section 173 Cr.PC., in the

- 13 -

competent court of law, prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for

quashing FIR cannot be accepted at this stage. However, this Court is not

inclined to accept the aforesaid submission made by the learned Additional

.

Advocate General for the reason that High Court while exercising jurisdiction

under Section 482 Cr.PC can even proceed to quash charge, if it is satisfied

that evidentiary material adduced on record would not reasonably connect

the accused with the crime and if trial in such situations is allowed to continue

person arraigned as an accused would be unnecessarily be put to ordeals of

protracted trial on the basis of flippant and vague evidence.

12. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case tilted Anand Kumar

Mohatta and Anr. v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) Departmetn of Home

and Anr, AIR 2019 SC 210, has held that abuse of process caused by FIR stands

aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation

and as such, the abuse of law or miscarriage of justice can be rectified by the

court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC. The relevant paras of

the judgment are as under:

16. Even otherwise it must be remembered that the provision invoked by the accused before the High Court

is Section 482 Cr. P.C and that this Court is hearing an appeal from an order under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Section 482 of Cr.P.C reads as follows: -

"482. Saving of inherent power of the High Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent

- 14 -

abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

17. There is nothing in the words of this Section which

.

restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent

the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the

High court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court ( G. Sagar Suri and Anr. V. State of U.P. and Others, (2000) 2 SCC 636 (para 7), Umesh Kumar v.

State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (2013) 10 SCC 591 (para

20). Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced, and the

allegations have materialized into a charge sheet. On the

contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly

conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court."

13. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Pramod

Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr, (2019) 9 SCC 608,

has elaborated the scope of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.PC,

the relevant para whereof reads as under:-

"7. Section 482 is an overriding section which saves the inherent powers of the court to advance the cause of justice. Under Section 482 the inherent jurisdiction of the court can be exercised (i) to give effect to an order under the CrPC; (ii) to prevent the abuse of the process of the court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The powers of the court under Section 482 are wide and the

- 15 -

court is vested with a significant amount of discretion to decide whether or not to exercise them. The court should be guarded in the use of its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash an FIR or criminal proceeding as it denies the

.

prosecution the opportunity to establish its case through investigation and evidence. These principles have been consistently followed and re-iterated by this Court. In Inder

Mohan Goswami v State of Uttaranchal5, this Court observed.

"23. This Court in a number of cases has laid down

the scope and ambit of courts' powers under Section 482 CrPC. Every High Court has inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of r which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the

process of the court. Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised:

(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and

(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

24. Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC though

wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the

advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute."

8. Given the varied nature of cases that come before the High Courts, any strict test as to when the court's extraordinary powers can be exercised is likely to tie the court's hands in the face of future injustices. This Court in

- 16 -

State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal6 conducted a detailed study of the situations where the court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and laid down a list of illustrative examples of where quashing may be appropriate. It is not

.

necessary to discuss all the examples, but a few bear relevance to the present case. The court in Bhajan Lal noted that quashing may be appropriate where, (2007) 12

SCC 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

"102. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are

taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or

r make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information

report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an

order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2).

..........

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the

proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

In deciding whether to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482, the Court does not adjudicate upon the veracity of the facts alleged or enter into an appreciation of competing evidence presented. The limited question is whether on the

- 17 -

face of the FIR, the allegations constitute a cognizable offence. As this Court noted in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCCOnLine SC3100 ("Dhruvaram Sonar") :

.

"13. It is clear that for quashing proceedings, meticulous analysis of factum of taking cognizance

of an offence by the Magistrate is not called for. Appreciation of evidence is also not permissible in exercise of inherent powers. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of

which cognizance has been taken, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of its inherent powers."

14. Now being guided by the aforesaid proposition of law laid down

by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court would make an endeavor to examine

and consider the prayer made in the instant petition vis-à-vis factual matrix of

the case. Careful perusal of FIR sought to be quashed as well as challan filed

in the competent court of law under Section 173 Cr.PC, if read in its entirety,

reveals that initially respondent-complainant while getting his statement

recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC, categorically disclosed to the police that

some altercation took place inter-se his father and occupants of the vehicle

having registration No. PB07BH8139 over less payment. Cccupants of the

vehicle after having paid Rs. 1500/- made an attempt to flee from the spot,

but when they were prevented by his father, driver of the vehicle rashly and

negligently, turned his vehicle, as a consequence of which, his father

sustained injuries and ultimately died. Besides above, no specific allegation, if

any, ever came to be levelled against the occupants of the vehicle that at

any point of time, they while fleeing from the spot inflicted injury of any kind

- 18 -

on the father of the complainant or they with an intention to kill his father ran

over their vehicle over his father and as such, police at the first instance

registered case under Sections 304 and 34 of IPC against the occupants of

.

the vehicle in question. It is only after one day of recording of the FIR sought

to be quashed in the instant proceedings, respondent complainant gave

supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr.PC to the police stating

therein that occupants of the vehicle in question had an intention to kill his

father. In the aforesaid background, case under Section 302 IPC came to be

registered against the present petitioners as well as driver of the vehicle

namely Narender Singh. As has been taken note herein above, respondent-

complainant in response to court notice issued by this Court in his short

reply/affidavit has disputed his supplementary statement recorded under

Section 161 Cr.PC by the police on 30.12.2019. He while admitting factum

with regard to filing of short reply/affidavit stated on oath before these Court

that contents of FIR lodged at his behest at the first instance on 29.12.2019,

are correct and his supplementary statement statement recorded on

30.12.2019 has been misconstrued by the police. Most importantly,

respondent-complainant in his affidavit as well as statement given to this court

on oath has submitted/stated that he and his family were in grave and

sudden shock of the sudden demise of his father and murmuring in local

dialect " Budda Maarita Ghassiti ke, kuchli dita gadia thaale". He stated that

he had no such intention to cause greater injury to the accused than that

mentioned in the FIR. Besides above, respondent complainant has

categorically stated that at no point of time, petitioners, who were occupants

- 19 -

of the Scorpio caused harm of any kind to his father, rather his father suffered

injuries after being hit by the vehicle being driven by the driver namely

Narender Singh rashly and negligently. It is quite apparent from the short

.

reply/affidavit filed by the respondent in response to court notice issued by

this Court as well as statement recorded on oath before this Court that

respondent complainant at no point of time gave statement to the police

that occupants of the vehicle had an intention to kill his father and they

dragged him with an intention to kill him, rather he in very clear terms stated

that his father came forward and stood in front of the vehicle demanding the

payment, but driver namely Narender Singh hit him while driving the vehicle

rashly and negligently. Since Narender Singh has not approached this Court

in the instant proceedings and it is not the case of the petitioners that at no

point of time person namely Narender Singh rashly and negligently hit the

deceased Dhanni Ram while driving the vehicle in question, there appears to

be no reason for this Court to go into the question whether case, if any, under

Section 302 or 304 IPC is made out against person namely Narender Singh,

however, having taken note of the fact that petitioners herein were mere

occupants of the vehicle in question and they had not caused/inflicted any

injury on the deceased father of the respondent-complainant, there appears

to be force in the argument made by Mr. Suneel Awasthi, learned counsel

representing the petitioner that no case, much less, under Section 302 read

with Section 34 IPC is made out against the petitioner. Respondents neither in

FIR sought to be quashed nor in statement given to this Court on oath has

alleged that petitioner while refusing to pay sum of Rs. 2000/- hurled abuses or

- 20 -

casued injury to his father, rather he very categorically alleged that his father

with a view to stop the occupants of the vehicle came in front of the vehicle

and was hit while driver of the vehicle wrongly turned his vehicle. Otherwise

.

also, there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements

of the respondent-complainant recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC and 161

Cr.PC. Statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC otherwise has no

evidentiary value save and except for the purpose of corroboration.

Contents of FIR, which is lodged at the first instance, have relevance provided

same are proved in accordance with law by leading cogent and convincing

evidence. Respondent-complainant, at whose behest FIR sought to be

quashed came to be ldoged himself has not alleged anything against the

petitioners and has no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the

petitioners for quashing of FIR registered against them under Section 302 IPC is

accepted. Otherwise also, this Court having carefully perused material

available on record, sees no justification or plausible ground to register case

under Section 302 IPC against the petitioners, who were merely occupants of

the vehicle coupled with the fact that there is specific allegation against

driver namely Narender Singh that he ran over the vehicle over the deceased

father of the complainant. Moreover, complainant in his supplementary

statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.Pc has himself stated that the

petitioner as well as other occupants of the vehicle were frequent visitors to

their shop and they used to come quite often to eat fish and as such, it

cannot be said that they had no prior acquaintance with the complainant

and his father, rather with the supplementary statement recorded under

- 21 -

Section 161 CrPC, this court has reason to presume that petitioners or other

occupants of the vehicle could not think of killing father of the deceased over

a petty amount of Rs. 500/-.

.

15. Leaving everything aside, this court after having perused

material available on record has no hesitation to conclude that evidentiary

material on record, if accepted would not reasonably connect the petitioners

with the crime. Neither there is sufficient evidence to conclude that on the

date of the alleged incident, petitioners had any intention to kill the

deceased father of the complainant or they with the help and aid of each

other committed alleged crime in furtherance of common intention.

Otherwise also, statement as has been given by the complainant before this

court, if tested/analyzed vis-à-vis material available on record by the

Investigating Agency, case of the prosecution is bound to fail in as much as

against present petitioners is concerned and hence, no fruitful purpose would

be served by allowing such proceedings to continue. To the contrary,

petitioners would suffer irreparable loss, harassment and mental agony, if

criminal proceedings in the present case, which manifestly appear to have

been initiated on account of misconstruction and misunderstanding of

supplementary statement of complainant recorded after lodging of FIR

sought to be quashed, are allwoed to continue. Moreover, chances of

conviction of the petitioners are very remote and bleak on account of

statement given by the complainant before this court and in case, FIR sought

to be quashed in the instant proceedings as well as consequent proceedings

pending in the competent court of law are allowed to sustain, petitioners

- 22 -

would unnecessarily be put to ordeals of protracted trial, which ultimately

may lead to acquittal of the accused.

16. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein

.

above as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, present petition is

allowed and FIR No. 159 of 2019 dated 30.12.2019, registered at PS Fatehpur,

District Kangra, under Sections 302 and 304 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC as

well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the competent court

of law are quashed and set-aside qua the petitioners herein only.

Accordingly, present petition is disposed of, so also pending applications, if

any.

    4th January , 2021                                        (Sandeep Sharma),
           manjit                                                    Judge