Criminal Misc. No.M.37513 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.M.37513 of 2011 Decided on 13.12.2011. Vidyanand and others ...... Petitioners. Versus State of Haryana and another .. .... Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI Present :- Mr. S.N.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. K.C.PURI, J. The accused/petitioner have filed petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for quashing FIR No.316 dated 19.8.2011 under Sections 302, 364, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in short – IPC registered at Police Station City Narnaul District Mohindergarh at Narnaul. 2. Briefly stated Dharambir son of Murari Lal made complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. against the present petitioners for having been committed offences under sections 302, 364 and 120-B, IPC Police Station City Narnaul District Mohindergarh at Narnaul. It is Criminal Misc. No.M.37513 of 2011 2 mentioned in that complaint that the complainant got married his daughter Prinyanka with Mahesh resident of Bawa District Rewari on 21.11.2007. His son-in-law, who was running a Dhaba in Ahamdabad (Gujrat) died in Rail accident on March 12, 2011. At that time the accused have kept his daughter on the pretext for performance of last rites. Just after, last rites of her husband, his daughter and her son Prince sent out from the house and threatened her not to come back. When his daughter narrated the whole story to him. Then he pressurized the accused through other relatives to give their shares in property to his daughter and her son as per law. At this, the accused stated that they would see at that time. All the above mentioned accused have intention to kill his daughter and due to this conspiracy on 23.4.2011 the accused No.1 Daya Nand, father-in-law, his brother Amar Singh and Rajesh came to his house with a concocted story that they wanted to perform last rites and ritual on account of death of her husband. The complainant stated that he believed them and he sent his daughter and her son Prince with them. On 26.4.2011, in the evening his daughter telephonically informed the complainant that neither they are performing any Haven etc. nor any ritual of her husband but it seems that they wanted to finish her. His daughter also told him that except above mentioned three accused, her aunt Champa Bai and sister-in-law Umesh Bai are also with them. 3. It has been further stated by the complainant that he received a telephonic call from accused Vida Nand that Priyanka is serious in accident when he asked him where is she then he cut the mobile call. After two hours he again informed him through telephone that Priyanka had died and Criminal Misc. No.M.37513 of 2011 3 they are bringing her dead body in Narnaul hospital. He afraid and reached the Narnaul Hospital with his family on 29.4.2011 and all the five accused were present there. When he asked them about the death of his daughter's son Prince they did not give satisfactory reply. Then he gave a complaint to the police post civil hospital Narnaul that he had doubt that they had murdered his daughter and requested for post mortem examination. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that regarding the same occurrence FIR No.8 dated 2.9.2011 for committing offence under Section 302 IPC at Viramgam Railway Station ( Gujrat ) has been registered and investigated by the DSP Western Railway Ahamdabad. The investigation in respect of that FIR was conducted and cancellation report was submitted. So, it is submitted in respect of one offence two FIRs cannot be registered. So, keeping in view authority Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and others vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in 2009 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) page 956, the continuation of investigation in the present case is an abuse of the process of the Court. The complainant had not approached the Court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts regarding lodging of FIR No.8 dated 2.9.2011, referred to above. The allegations does not contain an iota of material indicating the guilt of accused. So, the cognizance cannot be taken in view of authority Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and others' case (supra). 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the records of the case. Criminal Misc. No.M.37513 of 2011 4 6. From the perusal of FIR No.8 dated 2.9.2011, it is revealed that same was registered at the instance of C.S.Chahar Deputy Superintendent of Police, Western Railway, Ahmedabad. 7. The FIR No.316 dated 19.8.2011 is sought to be quashed was registered on 19.8.2011 whereas FIR No.8 dated 2.9.2011 was registered much later on i.e. On 2.9.2011. From the perusal of the record, it is revealed that the said DSP without making any proper inquiry sent for the cancellation report. Had the present FIR been latter than the FIR dated 2.9.2011, the position would have been different. Priyanka and the minor son had lost their lives. The FIR No.8 was registered on 2.9.2011 and according to the petitioner the cancellation report was submitted by DSP on 2.10.2011 in an undue haste. The real effected persons have not been examined before submitting the report. Moreover, when FIR No.316 dated 19.8.2011 regarding the occurrence has already been registered and thereafter registering another FIR No.8 dated 2.9.2011 was meaningless. 8. From the contents of FIR No.316 dated 9.8.2011, it cannot be said that no offence under Sections 302, 364 and 120-B, IPC is made out. The allegations prima facie clearly made out the offences. Criminal proceedings cannot be scuttled at the threshold more so when a minor of one and half years and young lady has lost their lives in an unnatural manner. Unnatural death of both of them has not been disputed during the course of trial. 9. The facts of authority Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and others' case (supra) is distinguishable to the facts of the present case. In that case, there was no dispute of two FIRs regarding the same occurrence Criminal Misc. No.M.37513 of 2011 5 and the Hon'ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that there was no evidence to show on what material the charge sheet has been submitted. In the present case, investigation is at the initial stage, the evidence is yet to be collected during the course of investigation. It cannot be said that continuation of the proceedings in the present FIR is an abuse of process of Court. The report dated 2.10.2011 in respect of the the later FIR No.8 does not create bar in respect of the investigation of the present more so when the FIR No.8 is later in time and the real complainant has not been associated. In a double murder case, the Court should see that every real culprit does not go scot free. The report of investigating officer without associating the real complainant is meaningless. So, in these circumstances, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, no ground for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out and the same stands dismissed. Needless to say that investigating officer shall conduct impartial investigation. December 13, 2011 ( K.C. PURI ) sv JUDGE