Himachal Pradesh High Court

Virender Singh And Another vs Of on 30 November, 2023

Author: Virender Singh

Bench: Virender Singh

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA




                                                                              .
                                                     CrMMO No. : 875 of 2023





                                                     Decided on :            30.11.2023





    Virender Singh and another                                            ...Petitioners

                                              Versus




                                                   of
    State of H.P.                                                         ...Respondent


    Coram                rt
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

    Whether approved for reporting?1



    For the petitioners:                Mr. Ajay Singh Kashyap, Advocate.



    For the respondent:                 Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Mr. Tejasvi
                                        Sharma and Mr. H.S. Rawat,
                                        Additional Advocates General, with




                                        Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate
                                        General.





    Virender Singh, Judge. (Oral)

Petitioners have filed the present petition, under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter

referred to as 'CrPC'), for quashing FIR No. 119 of 2019,

dated 28th June, 2019, registered under Sections 341 and

143 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

'IPC') with Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., as

well as, the consequential proceedings emanating from the

said FIR.

2. The said relief has been sought on the ground

that on 28th June, 2019, one rukka was forwarded by IO

Suraj Kumar, for registration of the FIR, alleging therein,

of that on 28th June, 2019, when he was on traffic duty at

Mashobra Bifurcation, at about 10.10 a.m., an information rt was received that one boy was sitting in front of HRTC Bus,

bearing registration No. HP-10A-7189, enroute Chandigarh

to Devidhar, and had caused the traffic jam and

inconvenience to the public.

3. It has also been informed to the police that

another boy was also accompanying him and they are not

allowing the bus to proceed towards its destination.

Although, they were persuaded by the police present there,

but, the boy, sitting on the road, did not permit the vehicle

to leave. The said boy had also laid down on the road and

obstructed the entire traffic, with the help and aid of five-

six boys, which resulted into undue harassment to the

passengers travelling in the buses. The name of the boy

sitting in front of the bus has been stated to be Ranjeet

Singh, resident of Karnal (Haryana) and another boy was

Ankush Sharma.

4. On the basis of the said fact, FIR was registered

under Section 341 and 143 IPC, with Police Station Dhalli,

District Shimla, H.P..

5. It is the further case of the petitioners that co-

accused, namely Sahil, Rahul Khachi, Mahesh, Ankush rt Khachi and Saurabh Bhardwaj, had filed CrMMO No. 758

of 2022, titled as Sahil and others versus State of

Himachal Pradesh, for quashing FIR No. 119 of 2019,

dated 28th June, 2019, registered with Police Station

Dhalli, District Shimla, under Sections 341 and 143 IPC.

The said petition has been allowed by this Court on 10 th

May, 2023.

6. On the basis of the above facts, it is the specific

case of the petitioners that the role allegedly played by the

present petitioners is similar to the role attributed to the

petitioners in CrMMO No. 758 of 2022 (supra).

7. On all these submissions, it is the case of the

petitioners that no case is made out against the petitioners

and the proceedings arisen out of FIR No. 119 of 2019 are

nothing, but, the abuse of the process of law. A prayer

has, therefore, been made to quash the said FIR, as well

as, the proceedings resultant thereto.

8. When put to notice, the police has filed the

status report, disclosing therein, about the fact that at the

of instance of ASI Suraj Kumar, FIR No. 119 of 2019 has

been registered, in which, the police has investigated the rt matter and filed the report before the Competent Court of

Law. The case is now stated to be pending before the

Court of learned ACJM, Court No. 2, Shimla, District

Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court').

9. It has also been mentioned that total nine

accused persons have been named in the said FIR, out of

which, five have already filed CrMMO No. 758 of 2022,

which was allowed, by this Court, vide order, dated 10 th

May, 2023.

10. It is the further case of the respondent that the

offences, as mentioned in the FIR, are not against the

individual, but, against the public at large. As such, a

prayer has been made to dismiss the petition.

11. Heard.

12. The petitioners have placed on record the copy

of the decision, dated 10th May, 2023, rendered by the co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in CrMMO No. 758 of 2022,

titled as Sahil and others versus State of Himachal

Pradesh.

13. By virtue of the said decision, the petition has

been allowed and FIR No. 119 of 2019, which has also rt been sought to be quashed, in the present case, alongwith

the proceedings resultant thereto, has been quashed. The

relevant paras-25 to 29 of the judgment, in CrMMO No.

758 of 2022, are reproduced, as under:

"25. Leaving everything aside, this court having

taken note of the material placed on record has no hesitation to conclude that the alleged incident of

obstructing road happened on account of emotional outburst of the petitioners after their being denied entry in the bus and none of the agitators including the petitioners had any kind of

intention to obstruct the road or cause damage to public property.

26. Moreover, this Court finds from the material adduced on record that prosecution intends to prove its case with the help of witnesses, who are employees of the HRTC, version thereof being interested witnesses otherwise required to be taken into consideration with utmost care and caution. No doubt, version put forth by interested witnesses cannot be brushed aside on account of their being interested or having relation with the complainant/injured, but certainly their

statements cannot be taken as a gospel truth rather, same are required to be corroborated by independent witnesses, which in the present case is missing.

.

27. Leaving everything aside, this court after having scanned entire material placed on record by respective parties, finds that the prosecution

launched by respondents, if permitted to continue would result in sheer abuse of process of law, because material collected on record in support of complaint by the Department, itself does not

of support the case of the prosecution. Material collected on record by the Department in support of complaint, if perused in its entirety, nowhere suggests that the prosecution is likely to succeed. rt In case prosecution in the case at hand, is allowed to continue, it would unnecessarily expose the petitioners to protracted trial.

28. Apart from above, 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 cause damage to public property or obstruct the passage of bus or they with the help and aid of

each other committed alleged crime in furtherance of common intention. Otherwise also, in view of the 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, are allowed continuing. Moreover, chances of conviction of the petitioners are very remote and bleak keeping in view the standard of evidence brought on record by the prosecution 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 would unnecessarily be put to ordeals of

protracted trial, which ultimately may lead to acquittal of the accused.

29. Consequently in view of the detailed

.

discussion made herein above as well as law laid

down by Hon'ble Apex Court, this court finds merit in the present petition, which is accordingly allowed. FIR No. 119 of 2019, dated 28.06.2019,

registered at police Station, Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 341 and 143 of IPC alongwith consequential proceedings pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

of Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. are quashed and set aside. All the petitioners are acquitted. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Interim directions, if any, stand vacated."

14. rt The role attributed to the petitioners, in the

present case, is similar to the role, which has allegedly

been played by the petitioners in CrMMO No. 758 of 2022.

As such, on the ground of parity, the petitioners, in the

present case, are also entitled for the same relief, as

granted to the petitioners, in CrMMO No. 758 of 2022.

15. In view of the above, the present petition is

allowed and FIR No. 119 of 2019, dated 28th June, 2019,

registered under Sections 341 and 143 IPC, with Police

Station Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., as well as, the

proceedings resultant thereto, pending in the learned trial

Court are ordered to be quashed.