AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kuldip Singh, Judge
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 u/s 154 Cr.P.C. and thereafter FIR No. 304 dated 29.08.2010 was registered.
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.
It has been stated that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR without there being anything against him. The petitioner was arrested on 30.08.2010. In the supplementary statement dated 23.09.2010, the petitioner was named. The FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The petitioner is innocent. It has been submitted that report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed in the Court.
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 u/s 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.
On 23.09.2010, injured made a supplementary statement to Investigating Officer in which he disclosed the name of Surjit Singh petitioner along with accused Tilak Raj and stated that due to darkness at the time of occurrence, he could not know whether there were two persons or three persons involved in the occurrence.
On 30.08.2010,Tilak Raj and petitioner were associated by the Investigating Officer and during investigation both of them disclosed that both were involved in the commission of offence, both of them produced different ''dandas'' weapon of offence and Investigating Officer arrested petitioner on 30.08.2010. The injured named petitioner in the supplementary statement, therefore, it was not necessary to carry out identification parade. On completion of investigation, challan has been submitted in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nurpur, and the case is now fixed on 02.05.2012.
The petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR. There is no prayer in the petition for quashing of proceedings before the Court. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to make a statement whether the Court has taken cognizance in the case or not. The complete papers of final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. have not been placed on record. Only opening six pages of 173 Cr.P.C. report have been filed without supporting documents. In the short reply filed by the Superintendent of Police, it has been specifically stated that injured has named the petitioner in his supplementary statement dated 23.09.2010 and before that on 30.08.2010 at the time of investigation, the petitioner disclosed his involvement in the commission of offence and even produced ''danda'' weapon of offence. In view of above, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is no case against the petitioner. Therefore, FIR No. 304 dated 29.08.2010, registered at Police Station, Nurpur, cannot be quashed and hence petition dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to make submission before the Court below to make out a case that on the basis of 173 Cr.P.C. report, no case is made out against him.