SURJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed for quashing FIR No. 304 dated 29.08.2010, registered at Police Station, Nurpur, under Sections 341, 323, 325, 382, 506, 34 IPC. It has been stated that D.D.R. No. 32 dated 29.08.2010 was got registered at Police Post, Kandwal, through telephone by Santosh Kumar, brother of the injured. The police went at Kalyani hospital, Pathankot, and recorded the statement of Munish Kumar under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and thereafter FIR No. 304 dated 29.08.2010 was registered.

(2.) IT has been submitted that FIR was registered against Tilak Raj and two unknown persons whose identity was never disclosed. The injured made two supplementary statements on 30.08.2010 and 23.09.2010. It has been stated that petitioner was not named in the FIR. He was not identified by the injured nor his name was disclosed in the supplementary statement dated 30.08.2010. At the time of investigation, no test identification parade was got conducted. It has been stated that petitioner has not been connected with the FIR.

(3.) THE respondent has filed short reply on the affidavit of Superintendent of Police, District Kangra. It has been stated that D.D.R. No. 32 dated 29.08.2010 was entered in the Daily Diary at Police Post, Kandwal, on telephonic message of Santosh Kumar and on that basis Investigating Officer of Police Post, Kandwal, went to Kalyani hospital, Pathankot and recorded the statement of Munish Kumar under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, FIR No. 304/2010 was registered at Police Station, Nurpur, on 29.08.2010 under Sections 341,323, 325, 382, 506, 34 IPC. Injured Munish Kumar disclosed the name of accused Tilak Raj and two other unknown boys involved in the commission of the offence.