Crl. Misc. No. M-25901 of 2011 (O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-25901 of 2011 (O & M) DATE OF DECISION: August 26, 2011 Ramesh Kumar .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ........ RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prays for quashing of FIR bearing No. 61 dated 23.06.2011 under Sections 406/420/511/34 IPC, P.S. Division No. 1, Pathankot being in abuse of process of Court. It has been brought out that the petitioner and respondents no. 2 and 3 are closely related. Dispute is in regard to the property of Om Parkash. Learned counsel contends that there is a conclusive documentary evidence to indicate that no offence has been committed by the petitioner. I have considered the contention of learned counsel as pleaded in the petition. The case is at inceptional stage of investigation. Process of investigation involves systematic inquiry into an alleged incident or transaction from its genesis till its conclusion, with a view to search out and examine the particulars about something hidden, which would include motive, manner in which the incident or transaction has taken place and involvement of the accused (directly or indirectly), in Crl. Misc. No. M-25901 of 2011 (O & M) 2 the said incident or transaction, with their exact and specific roles. 5. Informant or complainant makes a report in regard to a happening/incident/transaction which has taken place. On such report, the Investigating Agency undertakes investigation under Chapter XII, Code of Criminal Procedure, in a systematic manner. When needle of suspicion goes towards a particular person viz. the accused, his role is required to be investigated, in detail. However, the version of the complainant is one sided. The alleged accused might be innocent and might be in a position to establish his presence elsewhere or involvement of other accused, who might be the real players in the incident or transaction. 6. The incident or transaction is to be investigated in the context of the persons, who are involved in causing it. In such circumstances, it becomes imperative for the Investigating Agency to also look into the facts, as projected by the accused. An application given by the complainant might be tainted or driven out of selfish motive and might be de hors the true facts. Manifest injustice can be caused, in case, the version given out by the accused is not inquired or investigated. In such circumstances, it is as imperative to inquire and investigate the version given by the accused as is important and relevant to investigate the version given out by the complainant or informant. 7. Circumstances surrounding the incident or transaction would also play an important role. Medico-legal report, report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory, D.N.A. finger prints, etc. if relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case, would help the investigating agency to verify whether the complainant is telling the truth or version of the accused is more believable. So many instances have come to the notice of the Court Crl. Misc. No. M-25901 of 2011 (O & M) 3 wherein the complainant, after committing the offence, has gone to the police to make a complaint while indicating the needle of suspicion in other misleading direction or a complaint, with fabricated allegations, has been made to put pressure on the alleged accused so as to settle a civil dispute. Having considered the scope of investigation as given above, it is held that the investigating agency is required to investigate even the stand as given out by the accused so as to arrive at the correct and the truthful conclusion or else manifest injustice would be caused, rather, justice would become the victim. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with directions to the investigating officer to consider the stand taken by the petitioner in this petition and thereafter conclude investigation. It is specifically directed that the petitioner would be given a proper hearing and would be given an opportunity to bring to the notice of the investigating officer the documents on the basis of which the petitioner seeks relief. SSP, Pathankot shall ensure compliance of the order. 26.08.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE