Kamaljeet Singh & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others

Anoop Chitkara, J

Seeking quashing of FIR No.56 of 2019, dated 28.2.2019 as well as Police report filed under Section 173(2) CrPC, for the commission of offence

under Sections 341, 304, 323, 504 read with Section 34 IPC, the accused have come up before this Court because a perusal of the entire police report

reveals that no case is made out for commission of any offence against any of the accused.

The petitioner had arraigned the complainant as the third respondent. This court had issued notices to the third respondent. After consistent efforts,

the Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar, Punjab, under whose jurisdiction the 3rd respondent resided, informed that the notice of this Court

was duly affected upon him. Despite having been served the complainant-third respondent did not put in his appearance on 2nd November 2020.

Given the nature of the allegations, this Court appointed Ms. Anu Tuli as legal aid counsel to defend the complainant-third respondent.

I have heard Mr. Shivank Singh Panta, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General for

respondents No.1 and 2 and Ms. Anu Tuli, Advocate for respondent No.3 and have also gone through the records.

On 28.2.2019, the third respondent Amit Kumar Sethi informed the Police about the incident. After this, the I.O. of Police Station Sadar, District

Mandi, visited Zonal Hospital, Mandi, and recorded the statement of complainant Amit Kumar, under Section 154 CrPC.

The complainant alleged that on 27.2.2019, i.e., the previous date, he along with his father and friends namely Manpreet Singh, Charanjeet Singh,

Gaurav Meggi, Amandeep, Dalbir Singh, and his wife, Rajesh Prasad and Ram Rattan, had gone to pay obeisance to Mata Bagalamukhi temple. In

the night, they stayed in Gurudwara Sahib, Mandi, and in the morning on 28th February 2019, at. 9.30 a.m., they started their return journey in two

vehicles. They took breakfast at Pandoh. After taking breakfast, he took his vehicle bearing No. PB-65AH 4884 to a shop for a tyre puncture repair

to aerate the tyre. On reaching there, he told one of the attendants to aerate the tyre. The said person told the complainant that they do not put air in

the tyre and on this, the complainant told him to take the money and aerate the tyre. After this, the said person told him that he is richer than him and

entered into an altercation with him, and started hurling abuses at him. In between three more persons reached on the spot and started giving beatings

to the complainant with kicks and fist blows. On this Manpreet Singh and his father, who was traveling in his vehicle alighted from the car and came

to the spot. They started rescuing him from the clutches of the said person. After that, all those four persons, instead of him, started beating his father

with fists and kicks blows. In between occupants of other car reached on the spot and saved them from the clutches of the assailants.

The moment they started to board the car, his father, who was a patient of heart disease, received a heart attack and fell. He along with his friends

brought him to Zonal Hospital, Mandi, where the doctor declared him brought dead. On receipt of such information, the Police registered FIR No.0056

of 2019.

The police got conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased from Zonal Hospital, Mandi. The cause of death, as per the postmortem

report was acute myocardial infarction (Heart Attack). The Police also got conducted the medical examination of Amit Kumar Sethi, the complainant,

on the same day i.e., 28.2.2019. The Doctor obtained the visra and sent the same for FSL for examination. As per the report of the laboratory, the

deceased died due to myocardial infarction. The police also recorded the statement under Section 161 CrPC and after completion of the investigation

filed a report under Section 173(2) CrPC in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi. The Magistrate, in compliance with Section 207 CrPC,

supplied a copy of the report to the accused. After that vide order dated 17.5.2019, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, committed the trial to the

Sessions Court.

A perusal of the entire Police report reveals that it does not contain any improvements in the initial versions. A reference to the FIR reveals that the

incident started with the complainant-third respondent asking one of the accused to aerate the tyre of his vehicle. The said attendant-accused whom

the complainant took his attendant told him that they do not aerate the tyre. After that instead of requesting the said attendant, the complainant told

him that he should aerate and he should pay money to him. It might have infuriated the said attendant and it would have led to some altercation or

commotion. However, the question is that whether any cognizable offence was made out viz-a-viz action of the accused or not. As per the FIR, the

complainant Amit Kumar had stated that four persons gave him beatings with fists and kicks blows and to save him with his father and another person

Manpreet Singh had visited the spot. In his further case, after that for no reason, the said accused person started giving beatings to his father with first

and kicks blows and they were ultimately rescued by the occupants of other vehicles. During the investigation, the investigator recorded the statement

of Manpreet Singh under Section 161 CrPC. He also stated that three persons gave beatings with kicks and fist blows to Amit Kumar Sethi and to

save him from their clutches, he along with Chander Mohan deceased reached the spot. After that all those three persons started giving beatings with

kicks and fist blows to Chander Mohan. Analysis of the statement of Amit Kumar, under Section 154 CrPC, statement of Manpreet Singh under

Section 161 CrPC, does not make out any difference to the allegations and rather they are overlapping each other. A joint reading of the statements of

Amit Kumar, complainant, and Manpreet Singh does not refer to any motive for any of the accused to suddenly start beatings the father of the

complainant i.e. Chander Mohan, the deceased. Even the earlier narration of those three accused giving beatings to Amit Kumar does not find any

corroboration whatsoever from medical evidence. The investigator had taken Amit Kumar for conducting a medical examination. Copy of the MLC

Annexure P-4 reveals that the doctor did not notice any external injury over the body of Amit Kumar. The only reference is that the complainant is

feeling pain in the head. The petitioner had lost his father, the pain may be due to the said stress. There is no corresponding injury for the said pain.

A perusal of the postmortem report also reveals that the doctor did not notice any injury whatsoever anywhere over the body of Chander Mohan,

the deceased. In the FIR as well as the statement of other witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC, it is very clear that when the altercation had

stopped and things had settled, then they had proceeded towards the car and on reaching there Chander Mohan suffered a Heart Attack. This is also

stated in the FIR that Chander Mohan was suffering from heart disease. This fact is also corroborated in the postmortem report where the cause of

death is due to myocardial infarction. There is not even a single allegation that any of the accused inflicted kick or fist blow on the chest of the

deceased. Rather there is no injury anywhere over the body of the deceased.

Analysis of the above evidence gathered by the police, which the SHO has made basis to launch prosecution against the accused does not make

any case whatsoever under any provision of law. Ms. Anu Tuli, Advocate learned counsel for the complainant argues that even if no case for assault

would be made out, there is still a case for insulting, breach of the peace as well as simple hurt is made out. As far as the case of assault under

Section 323 is concerned, the doctor who examined the complainant did not find any injury whatsoever over his body. Similarly, no injury was noticed

on the body of Chander Mohan, who died of a Heart Attack. Regarding the offence under Section 504 IPC, of insulting, breach of peace, standing

alone it is not even a cognizable offence. A reading of the entire police report in its entirety does not make out any case whatsoever.

Given above, this petition is allowed and the FIR as well as the consequential proceedings are quashed. Record be returned.