Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Harmanpreet Singh and Ors - Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and Anr - Respondents
Cr.MMO No. 287 of 2020
Decided On : 04-01-2021
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 482, 154, 161 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 304 – Quashment of FIR – Petitioners herein have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 482 Cr.PC., for quashing of FIR registered 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. – Held, 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 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 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/-.– 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 allowed 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 would unnecessarily be put to ordeals of protracted trial, which ultimately may lead to acquittal of the accused. – Petition Disposed of,
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
1. 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 vehi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
