ORDER : 1. Petitioner herein has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying therein to quash and set-aside the FIR No. 159 of 2019 dated 30.12.2019, registered at P.S. Fatehpur, District Kangra, under Sections 302 and 304 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the competent court of law. 2. Precisely, facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that on 30.12.2019, respondent-complainant No. 2 Raghubir Singh (herein after referred to as the complainant) lodged FIR as detailed herein above, alleging therein that on 29.12.2019, while he alongwith his brother and father was present at his fish shop at Khatiyad, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P. 5-6 young persons namely Harmanpreet Singh, Sukhjeet Singh, Harjot Singh and Harvinder Singh along with Narender Singh i.e. driver of the vehicle bearing No. PB-07BH8139, stopped at their eatery for having fried fish. Complainant alleged that though aforesaid occupants of the vehicle ate fish amounting to Rs. 2,000/- but they only paid sum of Rs. 1500/- and as such, altercation took place inter-se them and his father. Complainant alleged that all the occupants including the driver after having seen people gathering at the shop made an attempt to run away and in that process, driver of the vehicle rashly and negligently turned his vehicle, as a consequence of which, his father Dhanni Ram, suffered injuries and was declared brought dead when taken to the hospital. In the aforesaid background, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged against the present petitioner as well as other occupants of the vehicle under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC. On 30.12.2019, police recorded supplementary statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he allegedly disclosed to the police that on 29.12.2019, at around 7 PM, six young boys from Punjab came to their Dhaba for having fish and they consumed 1½ kg fish and ½ kg curry with rice. He alleged that since persons named hereinabove were ready to pay Rs.1500/- only against the bill of Rs. 2000/- altercation took place between her father and them. Complainant alleged that persons named herein above started arguing and pushing him as well as his father and they headed towards their vehicle. He alleged that since persons named hereinabove were ready to pay Rs.1500/- only against the bill of Rs. 2000/- altercation took place between her father and them. Complainant alleged that persons named herein above started arguing and pushing him as well as his father and they headed towards their vehicle. He stated that when his father came in front of the vehicle demanding payment, vehicle was driven by the present petitioner, as a consequence of which, his father was dragged alongwith vehicle for about 25-30 feet. He alleged that all the occupants of the vehicle in question had an intention to kill his father Dhani Ram. On the basis of aforesaid supplementary statement made by the complainant, case under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC came to be initiated against all the occupants as well as person namely Narender Singh instead of 304 IPC. After completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, wherein police claimed that occupants of the vehicle in question ran over their vehicle over the deceased Dhani Ram with an intention to kill him. All the occupants save and except present petitioner Narender, who at that relevant time, was driving the vehicle, approached this Court by way of Cr. MMO No. 287 of 2020, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying therein to quash the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law, on the ground that no case much less under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC is made out against them, and they have been falsely implicated in the case. This Court after having perused reply as well as record of investigation passed detailed judgment on 4.1.2022, setting aside the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings qua them. Now by way of present petition, petitioner Narender Singh, who at that relevant time was the driver of the vehicle in question has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash and set-aside the FIR on the ground that no case much less under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC is made out against him and he has been falsely implicated. Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed their reply. Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed their reply. Respondent No. 1 has stated that there is ample evidence available on record that petitioner herein as well as other occupants of the car intentionally ran over their vehicle over the deceased Dhani Ram with an intention to kill him and as such, petitioner herein has been rightly booked under Section 302 IPC. Respondent No. 2 complainant in his reply/affidavit submitted that initial version given by him at the time of lodging of FIR is correct and supplementary statement given by him to the police on 30.12.2019 was misconstrued by the police. He stated in the affidavit that he being complainant/informant had no such intention to cause greater injury to the accused than the act which is mentioned in the FIR. He stated that he and his family members were in grave and sudden shock on account of demise of his father and as such, murmured in the local dialect “Budda maarita ghassiti ke, kuchli dita gadia thaale.” Para-3 of the reply, reads as under: “3. That it is humbly submitted that the deponent and his family were in grave and sudden shock and wailing heavily on the sudden demise of his father and were in no position to understand because of sudden death and murmuring in the local dialects that “Budda maarita ghassiti ke, kuchli dita gadia thaale” The supplementary statement recorded by the I.O. was misconstrued and mis-communicated and caused the misunderstanding with the I.O. in the investigation which resulted in a graver effect. The complainant/informant has no such intention to cause great injury to the accused then the act which is mentioned in the FIR. This short affidavit/ reply have been explained to me vernacular as well as in a local dialect which I understood completely and no fraud, coercion, undue influence and threat is given to me to file the same affidavit in this Hon’ble Court. The cutting and mistake if any has been verified by me.” 3. This Court with a view to ascertain the correctness and genuineness of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent-complainant in his reply deemed it necessary to cause presence of respondent No. 2 in the court and as such, pursuant to order dated 24.9.2021, respondent-complainant came present before this court. This Court with a view to ascertain the correctness and genuineness of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent-complainant in his reply deemed it necessary to cause presence of respondent No. 2 in the court and as such, pursuant to order dated 24.9.2021, respondent-complainant came present before this court. Respondent-complainant while acknowledging factum with regard to filing of short reply/affidavit on his behalf deposed on oath before this Court that on 29.12.2019, some altercation took place inter-se his father and occupants of the vehicle on account of less payment. He deposed that since occupants of the vehicle after having made payment of Rs. 1500/- made an attempt to flee from the shop, they were stopped by his father, but driver of the vehicle namely Narender Singh rashly and negligently turned the vehicle, as a consequence of which, his father fell down and ultimately succumbed to his injuries. He stated before this Court that he had narrated the aforesaid facts to the police on 29.12.2019, as a result of which, case under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the IPC was registered, but subsequently on 30.12.2019, police recorded his supplementary statement, wherein he had given the same version as was given at the time of lodging of FIR, but police misconstrued his statement and wrongly registered case under Section 302 IPC against occupants as well as driver of the vehicle. He deposed that it was wrongly recorded in his supplementary statement that occupants of the vehicle in question ran over the vehicle over his father with an intention to kill him, whereas his father sustained injuries after being hit by vehicle being driven by Narender Singh. He stated before this Court that at no point of time, occupants of the vehicle caused any harm to his deceased father. Complainant deposed before this Court that he has specifically stated in his short reply/affidavit that complainant/informant had no such intention to cause greater injury to the accused than what is mentioned in the FIR. Lastly, respondent- complainant on oath stated before this Court that since occupants of the vehicle being driven by the person namely Narender Singh had no intention to cause harm to his father, he shall have no objection in case prayer made on his behalf for quashing of FIR is accepted. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case. 5. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case. 5. Close scrutiny of the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings as well as reply filed by the respondent complainant reveals that initially on 29.12.2019, complainant while getting his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. had nowhere stated that the occupants of the vehicle in question ran over their vehicle over his father with an intention to kill him, rather he very categorically stated that occupants of vehicle made an attempt to flee from the spot after having seen people gathering at the shop, but when they were stopped by his father, driver of the vehicle namely Narender Singh wrongly, rashly and negligent turned the vehicle, as a consequence of which, his father fell down and sustained serious injuries. Complainant specifically alleged that after having paid Rs. 1500/- all the occupants of the vehicle, made an attempt to flee from the spot, but his father while attempting to stop the occupants of the vehicle suffered injuries and died. Though supplementary statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. suggests that complainant had got recorded to the police that occupants of the vehicle in question ran over their vehicle over his father with an intention to kill him, but such statement of him, if examined/analyzed in light of short reply/affidavit as well as statement made before this Court on oath, this Court finds reason to presume/believe that supplementary statement of the complainant recorded by the police on 30.12.2019 has been misconstrued. Otherwise also, it is not understood that what prevented the respondent-complainant to state such facts at the time of getting his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. on the basis of which, FIR on 29.12.2019 came to be lodged. Having taken note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has already allowed the petition filed by all the occupants of the vehicle save and except driver of the vehicle for quashing of FIR vide judgment date 4.1.2021 passed in Cr. MMO No. 287 of 2020. 6. Having taken note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has already allowed the petition filed by all the occupants of the vehicle save and except driver of the vehicle for quashing of FIR vide judgment date 4.1.2021 passed in Cr. MMO No. 287 of 2020. 6. If the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court is read in its entirety, it clearly reveals that this court after having examined the entire record, arrived at a conclusion that no case much less under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC is made out against the occupants of the vehicle including the present petitioner. Aforesaid judgment passed by this Court has attained finality, as none of the party to the lis has laid challenge to the same before the superior court of law. In the aforesaid background, prayer made in the instant petition for quashing of FIR made by the petitioner-driver needs to be considered. However, before considering such prayer, this Court deems it necessary to discuss /elaborate the scope and competence of this Court to quash the FIR as well as criminal proceedings while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, 1977 (2) SCC 699 , held that High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is entitled to quash the proceedings, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. 8. Subsequently, in case titled State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Apex Court while elaborately discussing the scope and competence of High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. laid down certain principles governing the jurisdiction of High Court to exercise its power. 8. Subsequently, in case titled State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Apex Court while elaborately discussing the scope and competence of High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. laid down certain principles governing the jurisdiction of High Court to exercise its power. After passing of aforesaid judgment, issue with regard to exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. again came to be considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case bearing Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 2017 and SLP (Crl.) No. 287 of 2017 titled Vineet Kumar and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another, wherein it has been held that saving of the High Court’s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose i.e. court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293 , relying upon its earlier judgment titled as Rajiv Thapar and Others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 , reiterated that High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charge, but such power must always be used with caution, care and circumspection. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court concluded that while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Court exercising such power must be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts and the material adduced on record itself overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. Besides above, the Hon’ble Apex Court further held that material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court and secure the ends of justice. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court and secure the ends of justice. In the aforesaid judgment titled as Prashant Bharti vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “22. The proposition of law, pertaining to quashing of criminal proceedings, initiated against an accused by a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) has been dealt with by this Court in Rajiv Thapar and Others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 , wherein this Court inter-alia held as under: 29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution’s/ complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 30.1 Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable and indubitable, i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2 Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e. the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. 30.3 Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4 Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.3 Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4 Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 10. It is quite apparent from the bare perusal of aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him/her due to private and personal grudge, High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can proceed to quash the proceedings. 11. Shri Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, contended that since investigating agency after having completed investigation has already filed challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the competent court of law, prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing FIR cannot be accepted at this stage. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the aforesaid submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General for the reason that High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can even proceed to quash charge, if it is satisfied that evidentiary material adduced on record would not reasonably connect the accused with the crime and if trial in such situations is allowed to continue, person arraigned as an accused would be unnecessarily put to ordeals of protracted trial on the basis of flippant and vague evidence. 12. 12. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case tilted Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home and Another, AIR 2019 SC 210 , has held that abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation and as such, the abuse of law or miscarriage of justice can be rectified by the court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The relevant paras of the judgment are as under: “16. Even otherwise it must be remembered that the provision invoked by the accused before the High Court is Section 482 Cr.P.C. and that this Court is hearing an appeal from an order under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows: “482. Saving of inherent power of the High Court: Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 17. There is nothing in the words of this Section which restricts the exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. even when the discharge application is pending with the trial court [G. Sagar Suri and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2000) 2 SCC 636 and Umesh Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2013) 10 SCC 591 ]. Indeed, it would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced, and the allegations have materialized into a charge sheet. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.” 13. On the contrary it could be said that the abuse of process caused by FIR stands aggravated if the FIR has taken the form of a charge sheet after investigation. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of power of any court.” 13. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2019) 9 SCC 608 , has elaborated the scope of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the relevant para whereof reads as under: “7. Section 482 is an overriding section which saves the inherent powers of the court to advance the cause of justice. Under Section 482 the inherent jurisdiction of the court can be exercised (i) to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C. (ii) to prevent the abuse of the process of the court and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The powers of the court under Section 482 are wide and the court is vested with a significant amount of discretion to decide whether or not to exercise them. The court should be guarded in the use of its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash an FIR or criminal proceeding as it denies the prosecution the opportunity to establish its case through investigation and evidence. These principles have been consistently followed and re-iterated by this Court. In Inder Mohan Goswami vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 this Court observed. “23. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts’ powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Every High Court has inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code. (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court. (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 24. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 24. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute.” 8. Given the varied nature of cases that come before the High Courts, any strict test as to when the court’s extraordinary powers can be exercised is likely to tie the court’s hands in the face of future injustices. This Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 conducted a detailed study of the situations where the court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and laid down a list of illustrative examples of where quashing may be appropriate. It is not necessary to discuss all the examples, but a few bear relevance to the present case. The court in Bhajan Lal noted that quashing may be appropriate where, “102. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2). .......... (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala-fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” In deciding whether to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482, the Court does not adjudicate upon the veracity of the facts alleged or enter into an appreciation of competing evidence presented. The limited question is whether on the face of the FIR, the allegations constitute a cognizable offence. As this Court noted in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC Online SC 3100: “13. The limited question is whether on the face of the FIR, the allegations constitute a cognizable offence. As this Court noted in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC Online SC 3100: “13. It is clear that for quashing proceedings, meticulous analysis of factum of taking cognizance of an offence by the Magistrate is not called for. Appreciation of evidence is also not permissible in exercise of inherent powers. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of its inherent powers.” 14. Now being guided by the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court would make an endeavor to examine and consider the prayer made in the instant petition vis-a-vis factual matrix of the case. Careful perusal of FIR sought to be quashed as well as challan filed in the competent court of law under Section 173 Cr.P.C. if read in its entirety, reveals that initially respondent-complainant while getting his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. categorically disclosed to the police that some altercation took place inter-se his father and occupants of the vehicle having registration No. PB-07BH8139 over less payment. As per complainant, occupants of the vehicle after having paid Rs. 1500/- made an attempt to flee from the spot, but when they were prevented by his father, driver of the vehicle rashly and negligently, turned his vehicle, as a consequence of which, his father sustained injuries and ultimately died. No specific allegation, if any, ever came to be levelled against the occupants of the vehicle as well as driver i.e. petitioner, that at any point of time, they while fleeing from the spot inflicted injury of any kind on the father of the complainant or they with an intention to kill his father ran over their vehicle over his father and as such, police at the first instance rightly registered case under Sections 304 and 34 of IPC against the occupants of the vehicle in question. It is only after recording of the supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. made by the respondent-complainant to the police, wherein he alleged that occupants of the vehicle in question had an intention to kill his father, case under Section 302 IPC came to be registered against the present petitioner i.e. driver of the vehicle namely Narender Singh as well as other occupants. As has been taken note herein above, respondent-complainant in his reply as well as statement made on oath before this Court has categorically stated that contents of FIR lodged at his behest at the first instance on 29.12.2019, are correct and his supplementary statement recorded on 30.12.2019 has been misconstrued by the police. Respondent-complainant in his affidavit as well as statement given to this court on oath has submitted that since he and his family were in grave and sudden shock after the sudden demise of his father, they murmured in local dialect “Budda Maarita Ghassiti ke, kuchli dita gadia thaale.” He stated that he had no such intention to cause greater injury to the accused than that mentioned in the FIR. Most importantly, respondent-complainant categorically stated that at no point of time, occupants of the vehicle including present bail petitioner, caused harm of any kind to his father, rather his father suffered injuries after being hit by the vehicle being driven by the driver namely Narender Singh rashly and negligently. 15. Having carefully perused reply affidavit filed by the respondent-complainant and statement made by him on oath this court is convinced and satisfied that at no point of time, complainant gave statement to the police that occupants of the vehicle had an intention to kill his father and they dragged him with an intention to kill him, rather he in very clear terms stated that his father came forward and stood in front of the vehicle demanding the payment, but driver namely Narender Singh hit him while turning the vehicle rashly and negligently. Having taken note of the aforesaid categorical statement made by the respondent-complainant, this Court in earlier proceedings i.e. Cr. MMO No. 287 of 2020, has already quashed the FIR lodged against all the occupants of the vehicle except driver under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC. Having taken note of the aforesaid categorical statement made by the respondent-complainant, this Court in earlier proceedings i.e. Cr. MMO No. 287 of 2020, has already quashed the FIR lodged against all the occupants of the vehicle except driver under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC. Since bail petitioner had not approached this Court in those proceedings, this court purposely restrained itself from making any observation or pass order with regard to complicity/culpability, if any, of the petitioner namely Narender Singh. Otherwise, bare perusal of judgment rendered in the earlier case clearly reveals that this Court categorically recorded finding that no case much less under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is made out against the occupants, also including the driver i.e. petitioner. FIR sought to be quashed neither reveals that petitioner herein while refusing to pay sum of Rs. 2000/- hurled abuses or caused injury to his father, rather categorical stand of respondent No. 2 from day one, has been that his father with a view to stop the occupants of the vehicle came in front of the vehicle and was hit while driver of the vehicle wrongly turned his vehicle. There are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the respondent-complainant recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and 161 Cr.P.C. Needless to say, statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. otherwise has no evidentiary value save and except for the purpose of corroboration. Contents of FIR, which is lodged at the first instance, have relevance, provided same are proved in accordance with law by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Respondent-complainant, at whose behest FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged, has not alleged anything against the petitioner herein and has no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR registered against him under Section 302 IPC is accepted. This Court having carefully perused material available on record, sees no justification or plausible ground to register case under Section 302 IPC against the petitioner, who at that relevant time was driving the vehicle. This Court having carefully perused material available on record, sees no justification or plausible ground to register case under Section 302 IPC against the petitioner, who at that relevant time was driving the vehicle. Neither it is the case set up in the FIR sought to be quashed nor it has come in the statement of respondent-complainant recorded on oath before this Court that petitioner herein with an intention to kill his father ran over his vehicle over him, rather, in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he himself stated that all the occupants of the vehicle were frequent visitors to their shop and they used to come quite often to eat fish and as such, it cannot be presumed that they can have an intention to kill the father of the complainant. Otherwise also, it is highly improbable and unbelievable that for sum of Rs. 500/- occupants of the vehicle including the driver would think of killing the deceased father of the complainant. 16. Leaving everything aside, this court after having perused material available on record has no hesitation to conclude that evidentiary material on record, if accepted would not reasonably connect the petitioner with the crime. Neither there is sufficient evidence to conclude that on the date of the alleged incident, petitioner had any intention to kill the deceased father of the complainant or they with the help and aid of each other committed alleged crime in furtherance of common intention. Otherwise also, statement as has been given by the complainant before this court, if tested/analyzed vis-a-vis material available on record by the Investigating Agency, case of the prosecution is bound to fail against the present petitioner, hence, no fruitful purpose would be served by allowing such proceedings to continue. To the contrary, petitioners would suffer irreparable loss, harassment, mental agony, if criminal proceedings in the present case, which manifestly appear to have been initiated on account of misconstruction and misunderstanding of supplementary statement of complainant recorded after lodging of FIR sought to be quashed, are allowed to continue. To the contrary, petitioners would suffer irreparable loss, harassment, mental agony, if criminal proceedings in the present case, which manifestly appear to have been initiated on account of misconstruction and misunderstanding of supplementary statement of complainant recorded after lodging of FIR sought to be quashed, are allowed to continue. Moreover, chances of conviction of the petitioner are very remote and bleak on account of statement given by the complainant before this court and in case, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law are allowed to sustain, petitioner would unnecessarily be put to ordeals of protracted trial, which ultimately may lead to acquittal of the accused. 17. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, present petition is allowed and FIR No. 159 of 2019 dated 30.12.2019, registered at P.S. Fatehpur, District Kangra, under Sections 302 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the competent court of law are quashed and set-aside. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.