Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasvinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 3 February, 2012
Crl. Misc. No.M-15621 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No.M-15621 of 2011
Date of Decision: 03.02.2012
Jasvinder Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present:- Mr. S.S. Siao, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, D.A.G., Punjab
for the respondent-State.
None for respondent No.2.
*****
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.
The petitioner, herein, is seeking quashing of FIR No.22 dated 16.02.2000 under Sections 452, 427, 506, 323, 148 and 149 IPC registered at Police Station Sohana, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali and Order dated 27.02.2001 passed by the trial Court and all consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR.
While praying for quashing of the said FIR, the only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the co-accused of the petitioner have since been acquitted by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure P-3) and the evidence against the present petitioner, being identical, the FIR against him should be quashed.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner is a proclaimed offender and, therefore, he Crl. Misc. No.M-15621 of 2011 2 cannot come back after ten years and claim parity with the other co- accused.
Heard.
The petitioner was granted bail in the said FIR. He is stated to have got married to an NRI girl during the pendency of the trial. Accordingly, he left India in the year 2001. Thereafter, he was declared a proclaimed offender on 21.02.2001. Meanwhile, the co-accused of the petitioner stood acquitted.
The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal vs. State of Punjab passed in Crl. 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 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 petitioner being a proclaimed offender, will not come in the way of quashing the FIR, in case, the evidence against him is the same as that of the other co-accused who stand acquitted.
Accordingly, the said argument of learned counsel for the respondent-State cannot be sustained.
Crl. Misc. No.M-15621 of 2011 3
On the other hand, the co-accused were tried by the trial Court. However, the prosecution could not prove its case against them. The case of the petitioner is identical. It is not disputed that the evidence against the petitioner, too, is the same.
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 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."Crl. Misc. No.M-15621 of 2011 4
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 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 Crl. Misc. No.M-15621 of 2011 5 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.
Thus, in case, the evidence sought to be adduced is the same, allowing the trial to continue will unnecessary waste the time of the Court especially the result is also likely to be the same as in the case of the co- accused. It would be a futile exercise to continue the proceedings against the present petitioner when the other co-accused stands acquitted on the basis of same set of allegation.
In view of the above discussion and facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.22 dated 16.02.2000 under Sections 452, 427, 506, 323, 148 and 149 IPC registered at Police Station Sohana, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali and Order dated 27.02.2001 passed by the trial Court and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR) 03.02.2012 JUDGE gurpreet