Declined quashing of FIR under inherent powers as witnesses named petitioner establishing prima facie case; trial delay not warranting quashing, instead directed conclusion within five months to uphold speedy trial right.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Petitioner Sonu @ Tashi, has filed the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No. 135/2017, dated 27.11.2017, (hereinafter referred to as “FIR in question”) registered with Police Station Shimla East, District Shimla, H.P., under Sections 341, 307, 323, 325, read with Section 34 of IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge – 1, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”).

2. The relief, as claimed in the petition, has been sought, on the ground, that at the instance of respondent No. 2, police of Police Station Shimla East, registered the FIR in question, in which, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet. On the basis of the said charge-sheet, the learned trial Court has taken the cognizance and charges have been framed.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the FIR in question, the name of the petitioner has not been mentioned, as, it has been referred that Leky Dorje and five other students of APG University have beaten respondent No. 3 Munanizi. The statement of respondent No. 3 Munanizi (injured), is stated to have been recorded much after the incident i.e. after ten days of the alleged incident, whereas, he has been discharged from the hospital within four days of the incident. The name of the petitioner has been added on the basis of statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and police could not collect any evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime in question.

4. According to the petitioner, if the entire material, collected during the investigation, is read as a whole, then, no case is made out, against the petitioner. The sole injury inflicted on the person of respondent No. 3, has been attributed to Leky Dorje, who has yet not been arrested, in this case.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that injured, as well as, the complainant, when appeared in the witness box, have not deposed anything against the accused.

6. It is his further case that the FIR has been registered on 27.11.2017, and cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court on 18.06.2022 and till date, the prosecution could not conclude the trial against him, in the present case.

7. On the basis of the above facts, the relief of quashing of the FIR in question, as well as, resultant proceedings thereto, has been sought.

8. When, put to notice, respondent No. 2 appeared before this Court on 11.09.2024, and deposed that he does not want to engage any counsel and has also deposed that he is merely an informant and has no personal interest in the matter, whereas, respondent No. 3 has not put appearance, before this Court.

9. Respondent No. 1-State has filed the status report, disclosing therein, that on 26.11.2017, an information was received in Police Post Kasumpti, regarding a quarrel, which had taken place in APG University. ASI Dalip Chand along with other police officials, reached at the campus of APG University, where it has been informed to the police that one person Munanizi, has been taken for treatment to IGMC Shimla, where respondent No. 2, Rajesh Kumar, who at the relevant time was posted as Assistant Sports Officer, in APG University, got recorded his statement, under Section 154 Cr.P.C., disclosing therein, that he is w