CRM No.M-12816 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-12816 of 2009 Date of decision:- 15.11.2011 Raghbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present:- Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raja Sharma, AAG, Haryana Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 5. **** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.1 dated 1.1.2009 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act and under Sections 307, 452, 427, 120B, 34 IPC registered at Police Station City Jagadhari, Haryana. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that vague allegations have been made against the petitioner in the FIR, where it has been stated that the offence has been committed by his son Amit Kumar along with one of his friends in connivance with his parents. His further contention is that the petitioner has already disowned his son and notice in this regard dated 5.4.2008 has been given by him and a suit for declaration and injunction was filed by the petitioner on 13.08.2008 against his son Amit Kumar under the Specific Relief Act praying therein for ousting his son from moveable and immovable property of the CRM No.M-12816 of 2009 -2- petitioner and further that if any wrong and illegal activities are committed by him, he should be responsible for the same. On this basis he contends that the petitioner has nothing to do with Amit Kumar and he has been wrongly involved in the FIR by the complainant. Accordingly, he prays for quashing of the FIR. On the other hand, counsel for the State as well as the complainant has submitted that on investigation offence has been found to have been committed by the petitioner. His confessional statement has been recorded, wherein he has admitted that he had hidden the revolver in a briefcase, which was used by Amit Kumar in the commission of the offence. There are statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein involvement of the petitioner in the conspiracy to commit the crime has been established. On completion of investigation, challan stands presented against the petitioner on 21.05.2009 and because of the stay granted by this Court, further proceedings against him has not commenced. Their further submission is that the petitioner has been attributed a role in the FIR and at this stage it cannot be said that merely because the petitioner had issued a notice or had filed a civil suit it would establish that the petitioner has nothing to do with the commission of the offence. Counsel for the complainant, on the basis of information received by him under the Right to Information Act from the District Jail, Rohtak states that the petitioner has been regularly visiting his son Amit Kumar in jail. On 01.06.2009, 04.06.2009, 29.06.2009, 03.08.2009, 17.08.2009, 10.09.2009, 12.10.2009, 23.11.2009, 09.12.2009, 12.12.2009, 21.12.2009, 24.12.2009, 28.12.2009 and 31.12.2009 petitioner had visited Amit Kumar in Jail. He accordingly submits that the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has disowned his son, is merely an eye wash. It has been prayed that the CRM No.M-12816 of 2009 -3- petition deserves to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. A role has been attributed to the petitioner in the FIR wherein it has been stated that the petitioner has connived with his son and friend of his son in commission of the offence. As regards the contention of the petitioner that he has disowned his son through a notice dated 05.04.2008 cannot be accepted as no publication of the same has been shown or even stated in the petition. The civil suit, which has been filed against his son also does not prove that the petitioner has no connection with his son Amit Kumar. What also goes against the petitioner in this regard is his frequent visits to the District Jail Rohtak where his son Amit Kumar is lodged to meet him. That apart, as per the allegations in the FIR, Amit Kumar and his friend had connived with the petitioner in the commission of the crime and during investigation, evidence has been collected by the prosecution showing involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence which is in the form of confessional statement made by him with regard to the hiding of the revolver, which was used in the commission of the crime and further oral evidence has been collected during the investigation showing the involvement of the petitioner in the offence. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present petition and therefore, dismiss the same. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 15.11.2011 JUDGE adhikari