P&H HC Says Injured Co-Accused’s Affidavit Needs Trial, Refuses to Quash Armed-Clash FIR Against PhD Scholar

FIR No. 60 dated 4 May 2024 was registered under Sections 160, 307, 148, 149 and 201 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, following a reported armed fight in which respondent No. 2 sustained a firearm injury.

The petitioner was named in the FIR and, after an inquiry, was found by the Superintendent of Police to be rightly accused; he was sent up for trial, but charges had not been framed.

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR, final report and consequential proceedings, relying on the injured respondent’s affidavit and reply supporting him, a witness statement, CCTV footage, the asserted absence of any overt act or weapon recovery, and the discharge of certain co-accused.

The State opposed the petition, arguing that the allegations and the petitioner’s role should be assessed at trial.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, but is not ordinarily used to assess disputed facts that require trial.

Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, illustrative categories for quashing include cases where the allegations, taken at face value, disclose no offence, are inherently improbable, or the proceedings are maliciously instituted.

Under Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, defence material may support quashing only if it is sterling and impeccable, rules out the prosecution’s assertions, is unrefuted or cannot justifiably be refuted, and shows that continuing the trial would amount to an abuse of process.

Further, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, recognises that offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act are generally serious offences against society; the court may examine the evidence and circumstances rather than rely solely on the section invoked.

The Court held that the petitioner’s material did not satisfy even the first Rajiv Thapar step: he was named in the FIR, and the police inquiry supported his prosecution.

The injured respondent’s affidavit was not conclusive because he was himself an accused, had not joined the investigation, and the affidavit did not explain the occurrence or the petitioner’s presence; its weight could be tested at trial.

The witness statement placed the petitioner at the scene among those watching the fight, while the bail order did not determine his innocence and the CCTV footage’s evidentiary effect was for trial.

The Court also rejected parity because the inquiry had distinguished the petitioner from co-accused declared innocent, and held that whether he shared the unlawful assembly’s common object was a factual question.

The serious firearm injury and circumstances of the incident further distinguished the case from the settlement-based decision relied on by the petitioner.

His remaining pleas could be raised before the trial court at the framing-of-charge stage.

It permitted him to raise all available pleas before the trial court at the framing-of-charge stage, to be decided on their merits and uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations.

The injured respondent was also permitted to join the investigation; if he did so, the investigating agency was directed to record his statement and take further action in accordance with law.