IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-11156 of 2010 Date of decision : 19.8.2010 Veena Kumari and Others …. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and Others ….. Respondents Present : Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. T.S. Salana, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Vineet Sharma, Advocate for the complainant/respondent No.4. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioners. The petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC for directing respondents No.1 and 2 to conduct an inquiry through some independent agency against respondent No.4. On 24.12.2009 Baljit Singh son of Ranjit Singh, Jatinder Kumar @ Vicky son of Ranjit Singh, Riptapan Kumar son of Pawan Kumar Sharma, Gagandeep Singh son of Karan Singh, Baljit Singh and Pardeep Kumar son of Darshan Kumar were traveling in a Zen car bearing No.PB-02AH-7301 and were going to Dera Beas for paying obeisance. One Mohan Lal son of Joginder Pal along with driver Vijay Kumar son of Narain Das were also going in their separate vehicle No.PB10-A-1321. They were following the Zen car. When both the vehicles reached ahead of Bijli Ghar Tangra, a Crl. Misc. No. M-11156 of 2010 [2] container vehicle bearing No.PB13-J-2526 was wrongly parked in the middle of the road without any indicator or other signal. As a result of which, the driver of the Zen car struck against the container which was parked in the middle of the G.T. Road. However, the driver of the car bearing No.PB10-A-1321 which was following the Zen car managed to swerve the car to the left side of the road. However, the Innova vehicle bearing No.PB-02AV-3858 owned by respondent No.4, it is alleged, was being driven in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed. The said Innova vehicle hit the ill-fated Zen car from the rear side with a severe impact. Because of which the Zen car was crushed between the container and the Innova vehicle. It is alleged primarily that on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Innova vehicle, the occupants of the Zen car who were five in numbers died at the spot. The dead bodies were taken out from the vehicle. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the driver of the container which was parked in the middle of the road is being prosecuted, however, the driver of the Innova vehicle which rammed in the Zen car from the rear side is not being prosecuted and has been found innocent. It is alleged that respondent No.4 and her family are influential persons having strong political links because of which they managed all the things in connivance with the police and got the FIR registered against the container vehicle only. Reply by way of affidavit of Sh. Ranbir Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jandiala Guru, District Amritsar has been filed. It is submitted that the Innova car which was following Crl. Misc. No. M-11156 of 2010 [3] the Zen car accidently hit into it and all the five occupants sitting in the Zen car died at the spot; besides, passengers in the Innova car also sustained injuries. Case FIR No.281 dated 24.12.2009 stands registered at Police Station Jandiala for the offences under Sections 304, 427, 337, 338 and 283 IPC against Dilbag Singh son of Hari Singh, driver of the container. During investigation, the container, Zen car and Innova vehicle were taken in police custody and later released on supardari. It is submitted that no fault of driver of the Innova vehicle was found during investigation and hence he has not figured in the case. It is submitted that challan has been presented in the Court on 26.3.2010. However, the driver of the Innova vehicle was not found liable. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Innova vehicle was coming in a rash and negligent manner at a very high speed and the driver of the said vehicle could not control the speed resulting in collision with the Zen car from behind. On the last date of hearing (i.e. on 4.8.2010), learned State counsel was asked to show the inquiry report/material or investigation that was carried out to reach the conclusion that the driver of the Innova vehicle was not involved in the accident. Learned State counsel has submitted zimni No.9 dated 29.12.2009 recorded by Gurmail Singh, SHO Police Station Khalchian in which it is mentioned that the accident had occurred due to the container being parked in the middle of the G.T. Road and the car in which the deceased were travelling hitting against the same. It is mentioned that the driver of the car following the Zen car had Crl. Misc. No. M-11156 of 2010 [4] managed to swerve the car to the left side and therefore, the Innova vehicle driven by Bhupinder Singh despite making full efforts to stop the same could not control it and hit the Zen car from its rear side. Therefore, Bhupinder Singh, driver of the Innova vehicle was not liable for the accident. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that from the perusal of the photographs (Annexure P2) it shows that it is primarily on account of the impact of the Innova vehicle from the rear side of the Zen car that the deaths were caused and that in case the car following the Zen car was able to swerve towards one side, there was no reason for the Innova vehicle to stop the same. In this regard, it may be noticed that this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not to embark upon an inquiry to hold that the reasons recorded in the investigations for not chargesheeting Bhupinder Singh, driver of the Innova vehicle are improper as they are not shown to be in any manner perverse or irrational which may have warranted interference of this Court in the exercise of its power of judicial review. This aspect is to be gone into by leading evidence and bringing material on record. Besides, the challan in the case has already been filed. Therefore, the petitioners may avail their alternative remedies either by getting further investigations conducted by invoking the provisions of Section 173(8) CrPC or by way of filing an independent complaint. It would be unsafe for this Court to order further investigations in the case in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Crl. Misc. No. M-11156 of 2010 [5] Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail their alternative remedies, the present petition is disposed of. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE August 19, 2010 amit