HARMANPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(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 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 11/2 kg fish and 1/2 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;