Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 312 (HP)

Rahul Sharma v. State of H. P.

2023-05-26

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No. 489 of 2018, dated 13.10.2018, registered at Police Station Sadar, Una, District Una, H.P. under Sections 341 and 143 of IPC and consequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom i.e. Criminal Case No. 77 of 2019, titled State of H.P. vs. Nikhil Kumar and others, pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1 Una, District Una, H.P. 2. Petitioner has been arrayed as one of the accused in the above noted case registered under Sections 341 and 143 of IPC. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are that a boy namely Naresh Kumar alias Sumit, who was a local resident of Raipur, was missing since September, 2018 and on 12.10.2018, an information was received at Police Station through the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Kotla Khurd that a man was found hanged on a tree, who later on was identified as Naresh Kumar alias Sumit. Large number of people gathered on NH-503 and disrupted the traffic. The residents of the area had gathered to protest against the insufficient investigation in relation with the death of Naresh Kumar alias Sumit residents of Raipur Sahora, Tehsil and District Una. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he was never involved in any offence as alleged in the FIR. Even his name did not find mention in the FIR. The investigating agency has not been able to gather any legal evidence against him. It is further submitted that in identical cases of persons facing similar accusations, co-ordinate Benches of this Court have quashed the FIR qua them vide orders dated 3.11.2022 and 12.10.2022 passed in Cr.MMO No. 970 of 2022 and Cr.MMO No. 656 of 2022, respectively. 4. Despite opportunities, respondents have not filed any reply. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 6. Noticeably, petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in criminal proceeding arising out of FIR No. 491 of 2018, under Sections 341, 143 of IPC and Section 8 (B) of the National Highways Act. 7. The first allegation against petitioner is that he was a member of an unlawful assembly. 8. Unlawful assembly is defined in Section 141 of IPC. Noticeably, petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in criminal proceeding arising out of FIR No. 491 of 2018, under Sections 341, 143 of IPC and Section 8 (B) of the National Highways Act. 7. The first allegation against petitioner is that he was a member of an unlawful assembly. 8. Unlawful assembly is defined in Section 141 of IPC. To be a member of an unlawful assembly, a person should have common object to commit an offence or any unlawful act as detailed in Section 141 of IPC. Section 142 of IPC further requires that a person accused of being a member of unlawful assembly should be aware of facts, which renders the assembly as unlawful and should have intentionally joined that assembly, or continued in it as such. 9. In the case in hand, there is no material to suggest that petitioner was a member of any unlawful assembly. Neither the requisite knowledge nor intention necessary to constitute the offence of being member of unlawful assembly are suggested against the petitioner. 10. Similarly, no material has been shown against the petitioner to attract the mischief of Section 341 of IPC. No evidence has been shown to exist against petitioner to suggest that petitioner had wrongfully restrained any person proceeding in any direction. 11. The allegations are that a large number of people had gathered on National Highway to protest against the insufficiency of investigation in respect of the death of a local resident. Even if petitioner was present on spot, he cannot be said to have committed any of the alleged offences, unless the requisite intent or knowledge to commit such offences is made out against him. The respondents have not filed any reply nor have they placed on record any material to justify the prosecution against petitioner for the offences under Sections 341 and 143 of IPC. 12. In Cr.MMO No. 970 of 2022, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 3.11.2022 has quashed the FIR qua one Sh. Dhiraj Sharma, against whom the allegations were identical to the allegations levelled against the petitioner. In another case similarly situated person named Tej Pal Sharma had approached this Court by way of Cr.MMO No. 656 of 2022 for quashing the FIR qua the same incident as involved in the present case. Sh. Tej Pal Sharma was also facing the identical allegations. In another case similarly situated person named Tej Pal Sharma had approached this Court by way of Cr.MMO No. 656 of 2022 for quashing the FIR qua the same incident as involved in the present case. Sh. Tej Pal Sharma was also facing the identical allegations. Another co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 12.10.2022 had quashed the FIR No. 491 of 2018 qua the petitioner in that case. Noticeably, the allegations and material in FIR 491 of 2018 and in the FIR involved in instant case are pari materia the same. 13. In view of above discussion, I am of considered view that there is no prima facie material against petitioner to connect him with any of the offence as alleged in FIR No. 489 of 2018, dated 13.10.2018. In such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioner in pursuance to investigation in FIR No. 489 of 2018 shall be abuse of the process of the Court. 14. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 489 of 2018, dated 13.10.2018, registered at Police Station Sadar, Una, District Una, H.P. under Sections 341 and 143 of IPC and consequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom i.e. Criminal Case No. 77 of 2019, titled State of H.P. vs. Nikhil Kumar and others, pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1 Una, District Una, are quashed qua the petitioner. 15. Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s) if any.