Crl. Misc. No. M-20466 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-20466 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: July 11, 2011 Naresh Kumar and others .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and another ........ RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings by persons who are accused in FIR No. 54 dated 29.04.2011 under Section 304/148/149 IPC, P.S. Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. 2. Learned counsel contends that when the facts and circumstances are considered, Section 304 IPC cannot even be invoked. No offence has been committed and, therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed. 3. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. 4. 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 the said incident or transaction, with their exact and specific roles. 5. Informant or complainant makes a report in regard to a Crl. Misc. No. M-20466 of 2011 2 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. 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 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-20466 of 2011 3 8. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with directions to DSP Incharge of Police Station Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib so as to ensure that all the aspects of the case are taken into account including the case projected by the petitioner-accused. The said officer shall also consider the alleged compromise effected between the parties and take steps as warranted in law. 11.07.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?