NARINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Sec. 482 Cr.PC., praying therein to quash and setaside the FIR No. 159 of 2019 dtd. 30/12/2019, registered at PS Fatehpur, District Kangra, under Ss. 302 and 304 IPC read with Sec. 34 of IPC as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the competent court of law.

(2.) Precisely, facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that on 30/12/2019, respondent-complainant No.2 Raghubir Singh (herein after referred to as the complainant) lodged FIR as detailed herein above, 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, HP, 5-6 young persons namely Harmanpreet Singh, Sukhjeet Singh, Harjot Singh and Harvinder Singh along with Narender Singh i.e. driver of the vehicle bearing No. PB07BH8139, stopped at their eatery for having fried fish. Complainant alleged that though aforesaid occupants of the vehicle ate fish amounting to Rs.2,000.00, but they only paid sum of Rs.1500.00 and as such, altercation took place inter-se them and his father. Complainant alleged that all the occupants including the driver 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. In the aforesaid background, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged against the present petitioner as well as other occupants of the vehicle under Sec. 304 read with Sec. 34 IPC. On 30/12/2019, police recorded supplementary statement of the complainant under Sec. 161 Cr.PC, wherein he allegedly disclosed to the police that on 29/12/2019, at around 7 PM, six young boys from Punjab came to their Dhaba for having fish and they consumed 1% kg fish and % kg curry with rice. He alleged that since persons named hereinabove were ready to pay Rs.1500.00only against the bill of Rs.2000.00, altercation took place between her father and them. Complainant alleged that persons named herein above started arguing and pushing him as well as his father and they headed towards their vehicle. He stated that when his father came in front of the vehicle demanding payment, vehicle was driven by the present petitioner, 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 Sec. 302 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC came to be initiated against all the occupants as well as person namely Narender Singh instead of 304 IPC. After completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, wherein police claimed that occupants of the vehicle in question ran over their vehicle over the deceased Dhani Ram with an intention to kill him. All the occupants save and except present petitioner Narender, who at that relevant time, was driving the vehicle, approached this Court by way of Cr.MMO No. 287 of 2020, filed under Sec. 482 Cr.PC, praying therein to quash the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law, on the ground that no case much less under Sec. 302 IPC read with Sec. 34 of IPC is made out against them, and they have been falsely implicated in the case. This Court after having perused reply as well as record of investigation passed detailed judgment on 4/1/2022, setting aside the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings qua them. Now by way of present petition, petitioner Narender Singh, who at that relevant time was the driver of the vehicle in question has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash and set-aside the FIR on the ground that no case much less under Sec. 302 IPC read with Sec. 34 of IPC is made out against him and he has been falsely implicated. Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed their reply. Respondent No.1 has stated that there is ample evidence available on record that petitioner herein as well as other occupants of the car intentionally ran over their vehicle over the deceased Dhani Ram with an intention to kill him and as such, petitioner herein has been rightly booked under Sec. 302 IPC. Respondent No.2 complainant in his reply/affidavit 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. 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. He stated that he and his family members were in grave and sudden shock on account of demise of his father and as such, murmured in the local dialect " Budda maarita ghassiti ke, kuchli dita gadia thaale". Para-3 of the reply, reads as under:-

(3.) This Court with a view to ascertain the correctness and genuineness of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent-complainant in his reply deemed it necessary to cause presence of respondent No.2 in the court and as such, pursuant to order dtd. 24/9/2021, respondent-complainant came present before this court. Respondent-complainant while acknowledging factum with regard to filing of short reply/affidavit on his behalf deposed on oath before this Court that on 29/12/2019, some altercation took place inter-se his father and occupants of the vehicle on account of less payment. He deposed that since occupants of the vehicle after having made payment of Rs.1500.00 made an attempt to flee from the shop, they were stopped by his father, but driver of the vehicle namely Narender Singh rashly and negligently turned the vehicle, as a consequence of which, his father fell down and ultimately succumbed to his injuries. He stated before this Court that he had narrated the aforesaid facts to the police on 29/12/2019, as a result of which, case under Sec. 304 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC was registered, but subsequently on 30/12/2019, police recorded his supplementary statement, wherein he had given the same version as was given at the time of lodging of FIR, but police misconstrued his statement and wrongly registered case under Sec. 302 IPC against occupants as well as driver of the vehicle. He deposed that it was wrongly recorded in his supplementary statement that occupants of the vehicle in question ran over the vehicle over his father with an intention to kill him, whereas his father sustained injuries after being hit by vehicle being driven by Narender Singh. He stated before this Court that at no point of time, occupants of the vehicle caused any harm to his deceased father. Complainant deposed before this Court that he has specifically stated in his short reply/affidavit that complainant/informant had no such intention to cause greater injury to the accused than what is mentioned in the FIR. Lastly, respondent-complainant on oath stated before this Court that since occupants of the vehicle being driven by the person namely Narender Singh had no intention to cause harm to his father, he shall have no objection in case prayer made on his behalf for quashing of FIR is accepted.