Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1548 (HP)

Ashwani Kumar v. State of H. P.

2018-08-23

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Heard. 2. This judgment shall dispose of both petitions having arisen out of the cross cases registered at the instance of the accused-petitioners therein against each other. While in this petition (Cr.MMO No. 73 of 2018) accused-petitioner Ashwani Kumar has sought quashing of FIR No. 157 of 2017, Annexure P-1 registered against him at the instance of Kavi Kumar, accused-petitioner No.1 in connected petition, accused-petitioner Kavi Kumar and others in connected petition (Cr.MMO No. 201 of 2018), have approached this Court with a prayer to quash FIR No. 156/17 registered against them at the instance of Ashwani Kumar aforesaid. 3. The status report filed by learned Deputy Advocate General and placed on record of this petition reveals that case under Section 341, 323, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 IPC has been registered against accused-petitioner Ashwani Kumar vide FIR No. 157 of 2017 and under Section 452, 147, 148, 149, 504 and 506 IPC has been registered vide FIR No. 156 of 2017 against Kavi Kumar etc. Both the cases came to be registered on account of the occurrence taken place on the same day, of course, at different time. As a matter of fact, these are cross cases for all intents and purposes and have to be tried simultaneously in the same Court. The status report further reveals that on the completion of investigation challan in both the cases stand filed in the Court of JMIC, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. and the same presently are at the stage of service of the accused-petitioners. The registration of cross cases prima-facie reveal that occurrence had taken place, however, which party was at fault, will surface at an appropriate stage during the course of trial. However, so far as these petitions are concerned, it cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that there is false implication of the accused-petitioners. Being so, quashing the proceedings against both sets of accused-petitioners, at this stage, would not be in the interest of justice and rather to throttle the prosecution of the accused well before holding the trial against them. 4. Therefore, there is no merit in these petitions nor any case is made out for quashing the FIR. The same, as such, are dismissed, so also the pending application (s), if any. 4. Therefore, there is no merit in these petitions nor any case is made out for quashing the FIR. The same, as such, are dismissed, so also the pending application (s), if any. In the peculiar circumstances, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing in these cases at the earlier, preferably within a year, of course, subject to rendering all assistance not only by the accused but also the prosecution. An authenticated copy of this judgment be sent to learned trial Court for compliance.