Harmanpreet Singh And Ors vs State Of H.P. And Anr

Sandeep Sharma, J

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.

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 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 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.

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;

“3. That it is humbly submitted that the deponent and his family were in grave and sudden shock and wailing heavily on the sudden

demise of his father and were in no position to understand because of sudden death and murmuring in the local dialects that “ Budda

maarita ghassiti ke, kuchli dita gadia thaaleâ€​ The supplementary statement recorded by the I.O. was misconstrued and mis-communicated

and caused the mis-understanding with the I.O. in the investigation which resulted in a graver effect. The complainant/informant has no

such intention to cause great injury to the accused then the act which is mentioned in the FIR.

This short affidavit/ reply have been explained to me vernacular as well as in a local dialect which I understood completely and no fraud,

coercion, undue influence and threat is given to me to file the same affidavit in this Hon’ble Court. The cutting and mistake if any has

been verified by me.

Having taken note of the aforesaid admission/statement made by the respondent-complainant in his supplementary affidavit, this court deemed it

necessary to cause presence of respondent No.2 in the court so that correctness and genuineness of the affidavit filed on his behalf could be

ascertained. Pursuant to order dated 22.12.2020, respondent-complainant came present before this court alongwith his advocate Mr. Bhupender

Ahuja, who also filed power of attorney on his behalf. Respondent-complainant while fairly acknowledging factum with regard to filing of short

reply/affidavit on his behalf stated on oath before this Court that on 29.12.2019, some altercation took place inter-se his father and petitioners on

account of less payment. He stated that since the petitioner after having made payment of Rs. 1500/- 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 Section 304 read with Section 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 Section 302 IPC against the petitioners as well as driver of the vehicle. He stated before this Court 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 that petitioners herein at no point

of time caused any harm to his deceased father. He stated that after having received notice in the instant proceedings from the court, he has filed

short reply/affidavit stating therein that contents of the FIR recorded at his behest on 29.12.2019 are correct and supplementary statement recorded

under Section 161 Cr.PC on 30.12.2019 has been misconstrued by the police. 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 petitioners were occupants of the vehicle being driven by the person namely

Narender Singh and no harm was caused by them to his father during unfortunate incident, he shall have no objection in case prayer made on their

behalf for quashing of FIR is accepted.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case.

Careful perusal of contents of FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, short/reply filed by the complainant as well as statement of the

complainant recorded on oath before this Court, reveals that initially on 29.12.2019, complainant while getting his statement recorded under Section

154 Cr.PC., had nowhere stated that the occupants of the vehicle in question ran over their vehicle over his father with an intention to kill him, rather

he very categorically stated that occupants of vehicle made an attempt to flee from the spot after having seen people gathering at the shop, but when

they were stopped by his father, driver of the vehicle namely Narender Singh wrongly, rashly and negligent turned the vehicle, as a consequence of

which, his father fell down and sustained serious injuries. There is no whisper, if any, with regard to intention of the occupants of the vehicle to cause

injuries, if any, to the father of the complainant, rather complainant specifically alleged that accused after having paid sum of Rs. 1500/- made an

attempt to flee from the spot, but his father while attempting to stop the occupants of the vehicle suffered injuries and died. If supplementary

statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.PC, is perused in its entirety, it though suggests that complainant had got recorded to the police that

occupants of the vehicle in question ran over their vehicle over his father with an intention to kill him, but such statement of him, if is examined/

analyzed in light of short reply/affidavit as well as statement made before this Court on oath, this Court finds reason to presume/believe that

supplementary statement of the complainant recorded by the police on 30.12.2019 has been misconstrued. Otherwise also, if subsequent version put

forth by way of supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC is presumed to be correct, it is not understood that what prevented the

respondent-complainant to state such facts at the time of getting his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC, on the basis of which, FIR on

29.12.2019 came to be lodged. In the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as have been taken note herein above, prayer made on

behalf of the petitioners, who were merely occupants of the vehicle in question deserves to be considered, but before considering such prayer of them,

this Court deems it necessary to discuss /elaborate the scope and competence of this Court to quash the FIR as well as criminal proceedings while

exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC.

A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and others, 1977 (2) SCC 699, held that

High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC is entitled to quash the proceedings, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the

proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.

Subsequently, in case titled State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 ,the Hon’ble Apex Court while

elaborately discussing the scope and competence of High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.PC laid down certain principles

governing the jurisdiction of High Court to exercise its power. After passing of aforesaid judgment, issue with regard to exercise of power under

Section 482 Cr.PC, again came to be considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case bearing Criminal Appeal No.577 of 2017 (arising out of SLP

(CrL.) No. 287 of 2017) titled Vineet Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., wherein it has been held that saving of the High Court’s inherent

powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose i.e. court proceedings ought not to be permitted to

degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 29,3 relying upon its earlier judgment titled as Rajiv Thapar

and Ors v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, reiterated that High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC., to quash the proceedings

against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charge, but such power must

always be used with caution, care and circumspection. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court concluded that while exercising its

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., Court exercising such power must be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is

such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts and the material adduced on record

itself overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. Besides above, the Hon’ble

Apex Court further held that material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the

actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. In

the aforesaid judgment titled as Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-

“22. The proposition of law, pertaining to quashing of criminal proceedings, initiated against an accused by a High Court under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.â€) has been dealt with by this Court in Rajiv Thapar &

Ors. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor wherein this Court inter alia held as under: (2013) 3 SCC 330, paras 29-30)

The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash

the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of

framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available

for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would

have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the

prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke

its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused

is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced

is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is

such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the

prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant,

without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or

alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused

should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a

situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such

criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.

Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a

prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-

30.1 Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and

impeccable quality?

30.2 Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the

accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as

would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.

30.3 Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material

is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

30.4 Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal -

proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused,

would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom)

specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.â€​

It is quite apparent from the bare perusal of aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time that where a criminal

proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance

on the accused and with a view to spite him/her due to private and personal grudge, High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC can

proceed to quash the proceedings.

Sh. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, contended that since investigating agency after having completed investigation has

already filed challan under Section 173 Cr.PC., in the competent court of law, prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing FIR cannot be

accepted at this stage. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the aforesaid submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General for

the reason that High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC can even proceed to quash charge, if it is satisfied that evidentiary

material adduced on record would not reasonably connect the accused with the crime and if trial in such situations is allowed to continue person

arraigned as an accused would be unnecessarily be put to ordeals of protracted trial on the basis of flippant and vague evidence.

Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case tilted Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) Departmetn of

Home and Anr, AIR 2019 SC 210, has held that abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet

after investigation and as such, the abuse of law or miscarriage of justice can be rectified by the court while exercising power under Section 482

Cr.PC. The relevant paras of the judgment are as under:

Even otherwise it must be remembered that the provision invoked by the accused before the High Court is Section 482 Cr. P.C and that

this Court is hearing an appeal from an order under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Section 482 of Cr.P.C reads as follows: -

“482. Saving of inherent power of the High Court.-Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High

Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court

or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.â€​

There is nothing in the words of this Section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court

or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High court can exercise jurisdiction under Section

482 of Cr.P.C even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court ( G. Sagar Suri and Anr. V. State of U.P. and Others,

(2000) 2 SCC 636 (para 7), Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (2013) 10 SCC 591 (para 20). Indeed, it would be a

travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced, and the

allegations have materialized into a charge sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands

aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of

process of power of any court.â€​

Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr, (2019) 9 SCC 608, has

elaborated the scope of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.PC, the relevant para whereof reads as under:-

“7. Section 482 is an overriding section which saves the inherent powers of the court to advance the cause of justice. Under Section 482

the inherent jurisdiction of the court can be exercised (i) to give effect to an order under the CrPC; (ii) to prevent the abuse of the process of

the court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The powers of the court under Section 482 are wide and the court is vested with a

significant amount of discretion to decide whether or not to exercise them. The court should be guarded in the use of its extraordinary

jurisdiction to quash an FIR or criminal proceeding as it denies the prosecution the opportunity to establish its case through investigation

and evidence. These principles have been consistently followed and re-iterated by this Court. In Inder Mohan Goswami v State of

Uttaranchal5, this Court observed.

“23. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts’ powers under Section 482 CrPC. Every High

Court has inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to

prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised:

(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and

(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when

exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any

abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by

invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute.â€​

Given the varied nature of cases that come before the High Courts, any strict test as to when the court’s extraordinary powers can be

exercised is likely to tie the court’s hands in the face of future injustices. This Court in State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal6 conducted a

detailed study of the situations where the court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and laid down a list of illustrative examples of

where quashing may be appropriate. It is not necessary to discuss all the examples, but a few bear relevance to the present case. The court

in Bhajan Lal noted that quashing may be appropriate where, (2007) 12 SCC 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

“102. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable

offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the

purview of Section 155(2).

…….…

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior

motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.â€​

In deciding whether to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482, the Court does not adjudicate upon the veracity of the facts alleged or

enter into an appreciation of competing evidence presented. The limited question is whether on the face of the FIR, the allegations constitute

a cognizable offence. As this Court noted in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCCOnLine SC3100

(“Dhruvaram Sonarâ€​) :

“13. It is clear that for quashing proceedings, meticulous analysis of factum of taking cognizance of an offence by the Magistrate is not

called for. Appreciation of evidence is also not permissible in exercise of inherent powers. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not

constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of its inherent

powers.â€​

Now being guided by the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court would make an endeavor to examine

and consider the prayer made in the instant petition vis-Ã -vis factual matrix of the case. Careful perusal of FIR sought to be quashed as well as

challan filed in the competent court of law under Section 173 Cr.PC, if read in its entirety, reveals that initially respondent-complainant while getting

his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC, categorically disclosed to the police that some altercation took place inter-se his father and

occupants of the vehicle having registration No. PB07BH8139 over less payment. Cccupants of the vehicle after having paid Rs. 1500/- made an

attempt to flee from the spot, but when they were prevented by his father, driver of the vehicle rashly and negligently, turned his vehicle, as a

consequence of which, his father sustained injuries and ultimately died. Besides above, no specific allegation, if any, ever came to be levelled against

the occupants of the vehicle that at any point of time, they while fleeing from the spot inflicted injury of any kind on the father of the complainant or

they with an intention to kill his father ran over their vehicle over his father and as such, police at the first instance registered case under Sections 304

and 34 of IPC against the occupants of the vehicle in question. It is only after one day of recording of the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant

proceedings, respondent complainant gave supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr.PC to the police stating therein that occupants of the

vehicle in question had an intention to kill his father. In the aforesaid background, case under Section 302 IPC came to be registered against the

present petitioners as well as driver of the vehicle namely Narender Singh. As has been taken note herein above, respondent-complainant in response

to court notice issued by this Court in his short reply/affidavit has disputed his supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC by the

police on 30.12.2019. He while admitting factum with regard to filing of short reply/affidavit stated on oath before these Court that contents of FIR

lodged at his behest at the first instance on 29.12.2019, are correct and his supplementary statement statement recorded on 30.12.2019 has been

misconstrued by the police. Most importantly, respondent-complainant in his affidavit as well as statement given to this court on oath has

submitted/stated that he and his family were in grave and sudden shock of the sudden demise of his father and murmuring in local dialect “ Budda

Maarita Ghassiti ke, kuchli dita gadia thaaleâ€. He stated that he had no such intention to cause greater injury to the accused than that mentioned in

the FIR. Besides above, respondent complainant has categorically stated that at no point of time, petitioners, who were occupants of the Scorpio

caused harm of any kind to his father, rather his father suffered injuries after being hit by the vehicle being driven by the driver namely Narender

Singh rashly and negligently. It is quite apparent from the short reply/affidavit filed by the respondent in response to court notice issued by this Court

as well as statement recorded on oath before this Court that respondent complainant at no point of time gave statement to the police that occupants of

the vehicle had an intention to kill his father and they dragged him with an intention to kill him, rather he in very clear terms stated that his father came

forward and stood in front of the vehicle demanding the payment, but driver namely Narender Singh hit him while driving the vehicle rashly and

negligently. Since Narender Singh has not approached this Court in the instant proceedings and it is not the case of the petitioners that at no point of

time person namely Narender Singh rashly and negligently hit the deceased Dhanni Ram while driving the vehicle in question, there appears to be no

reason for this Court to go into the question whether case, if any, under Section 302 or 304 IPC is made out against person namely Narender Singh,

however, having taken note of the fact that petitioners herein were mere occupants of the vehicle in question and they had not caused/inflicted any

injury on the deceased father of the respondent-complainant, there appears to be force in the argument made by Mr. Suneel Awasthi, learned counsel

representing the petitioner that no case, much less, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is made out against the petitioner. Respondents neither

in FIR sought to be quashed nor in statement given to this Court on oath has alleged that petitioner while refusing to pay sum of Rs. 2000/- hurled

abuses or casued injury to his father, rather he very categorically alleged that his father with a view to stop the occupants of the vehicle came in front

of the vehicle and was hit while driver of the vehicle wrongly turned his vehicle. Otherwise also, there are material contradictions and inconsistencies

in the statements of the respondent-complainant recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC and 161 Cr.PC. Statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC

otherwise has no evidentiary value save and except for the purpose of corroboration. 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 namely Narender Singh 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/-.

Leaving everything aside, this court after having perused material available on record has no hesitation to conclude that evidentiary material on

record, if accepted would not reasonably connect the petitioners with the crime. 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-Ã -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 allwoed

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.

Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, present petition is

allowed and 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 are quashed and set-aside qua the petitioners herein

only. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.