Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inderjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 January, 2012
Crl. Misc. No.M-14086 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No.M-14086 of 2011
Date of Decision: 27.01.2012
Inderjit Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present:- Ms. Monika Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, D.A.G., Punjab
for the respondent-State.
*****
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest ?
**
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No.173 dated 06.12.2004 under Sections 392/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Adampur, District Jalandhar and the consequential proceedings arising thereto from the aforesaid FIR.
An FIR No.173 dated 06.12.2004 under Sections 392/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered at Police Station Adampur, District Jalandhar against the present petitioner along with the other accused. The prosecution failed to prove the case against the co-accused. Hence, all the other co-accused were acquitted vide Order and judgment Crl. Misc. No.M-14086 of 2011 2 dated 28.09.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar and placed on record as Annexure P-3. However, the trial against the present petitioner did not conclude and the same Order could not be passed in his case as the petitioner went abroad in the year 2007.
While praying for quashing of the said petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence against the present petitioner is the same. He has already surrendered before the trial Court. Thus, it would be a futile to go through the trial.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State, while opposing the said petition, submitted that the petitioner was a proclaimed offender and as such, the FIR should not be quashed against him. It was further stated that the prosecution will make sincere efforts to produce evidence against him.
Heard.
The first objection of learned counsel for the respondent will not hold good any more as the petitioner preferred Crl. Misc. No.M-4620 of 2011 before this Court for quashing of Order dated 10.09.2007 declaring him as proclaimed offender. The Crl. Misc. No.M-4620 of 2011 was disposed of vide Order dated 14.02.2011, whereby, the petitioner was directed to surrender before the trial Court on or before 30.03.2011. The petitioner surrendered before the trial Court on 17.03.2011 and was granted bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide Order dated 18.04.2011.
Moreover, this Court in the case of Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal vs. State of Punjab passed in Criminal Appeal No.D-638-DB of 2007, decided on 17.03.2011 held as under :-
" 23. We are conscious of the fact situation that those three accused namely Radha Mandal, Rijiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal had absconded and were declared as proclaimed offenders. They had not Crl. Misc. No.M-14086 of 2011 3 faced the trial, but when we find that no case could be made out as against them also with the very same rickety materials, those accused also will have to be relieved of the impending pain of facing the prosecution for murder. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows :-
" Saving of inherent powers of 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."
Thus, the said objection of learned counsel for the respondent- State that the FIR cannot be quashed is not sustainable in the facts of the present case.
The second objection that the prosecution will make effort to produce the evidence, too, has no merit as the evidence stands collected and the challan has already been filed. The trial against the other co- accused stands concluded. The other co-accused have been acquitted. It is not the case of the prosecution that the evidence against the present petitioner is different in any manner. In fact, the petitioner has specifically stated in para 5(i) of the petition that "there is no material against the present petitioner apart from the evidence already placed before the Court during trial of the co-accused. As prosecution had failed to prove case against the co-accused and as there is no other evidence against the present petitioner, hence, no case is made out against the present petitioner and if the petitioner is subjected to the trial then it will cause unnecessary wastage of time of the Court as the result would be same." The respondent has not specifically denied the said fact in reply to the said paragraph but simply stated that they will make sincere efforts to produce evidence against the petitioner, whereas, the FIR has not been supported Crl. Misc. No.M-14086 of 2011 4 by the prosecution witnesses. Even the complainant has not supported the prosecution. The conductor of the bus failed to identify the accused persons. It is not denied that the evidence so collected by the prosecution against the petitioner and the other co-accused is the same. Thus there is no chance of ultimate conviction of the petitioner on the same set of evidence. No useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal prosecution to continue against the petitioner.
In the case of Gurpreet Singh alias Khinder vs. State of Punjab reported as 1995(2) RCR (Crl.) 127, somewhere in similar circumstances, where the petitioner was charged for an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, as well as, Sections 302/34 IPC and the FIR was quashed as the co- accused, who were arrested stood acquitted by the trial Court. It was held that where the evidence is same, continuation of proceedings in the case of the petitioner would result in waste of court's time and unnecessary expenditure on State exchequer. The proceedings in the said case against the petitioner were quashed while relying on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in the case titled as Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others reported as 1988(1) Recent CR 565 by observing in para 4 as under :-
" The local position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are weak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing Crl. Misc. No.M-14086 of 2011 5 criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."
In another case, the Single Bench of Delhi High Court titled as Urmila Devi vs. The State (NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) reported as 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 246 while relying on various judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court and the other High Courts quashed the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 304-B/34 IPC, as all the co-accused were acquitted and there was no question of invoking Section 34 IPC. Para 5 of the said judgment reads as under :-
"5. The learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the judgment dated 24.09.2003 to show the manner in which the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses and, particularly, by the mother and sisters of the deceased (Meenu) have been discussed in detail by the trial court and have been found to be untrustworthy. He then referred to the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar v. State, 81(1999) DLT 197 wherein, also, the co-accused had been acquitted while the petitioner therein had been absconding and, therefore, the trial could not proceed against him. Subsequently, after the co-accused were acquitted, the petitioner, in that case, surrendered before the Additional Sessions Judge and sought his discharge on the ground that the other accused had been acquitted of the offences under Sections 148/302/149 IPC. Rejecting that prayer, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had framed a charge under Sections 304/34 IPC against the petitioner therein. However, this court set aside that order and concluded that the trial would only mean a wastage of time inasmuch as it was of the view that the evidence against all the accused persons was inseparable and indivisible and, therefore, when the co-accused had been acquitted, there was no reason to treat the petitioner Crl. Misc. No.M-14086 of 2011 6 differently on the basis of the same evidence. Paragraph 3 of the said decision is relevant and it reads as under:-
"3. The question thus is as to whether in the face of the judgment of acquittal the petitioner should still be permitted to undergo the ordeal of a trial. In Sat Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1974 SC 294 it was held that there is no rule of law that if the Court acquits some of the accused on the evidence of a witness raising doubt with regard to them the other accused against whom there is absolute certainly about his complicity in the crime based on the remaining credible part of the evidence of that witness must be acquitted. But where the evidence against all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and if some of the accused persons have been acquitted, the remaining accused persons cannot be treated differently on the basis of the same evidence."
In the case of Amarjit vs. State reported as 1996(1) C.C. Cases 465, the co-accused had been acquitted. The Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not required to undergo the ordeal of a trial, particularly, when the co-accused was acquitted.
In view of the above discussion and facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.173 dated 06.12.2004 under Sections 392/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Adampur, District Jalandhar and the consequential proceedings arising thereto from the aforesaid FIR, are, hereby, quashed.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR) 27.01.2012 JUDGE gurpreet