Punjab-Haryana High Court
Subeg Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana on 27 August, 2012
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
CRM M-10766 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-10766 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: August 27, 2012.
Subeg Singh and others
..........PETITIONER(s).
VERSUS
State of Haryana
.........RESPONDENT(s).
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. Jasdeep Singh Gill, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sandeep S. Mann, Sr. D.A.G. Haryana.
*******
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of FIR No.97 dated 26.07.2011 under Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Siwan, Annexure P-1.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record.
Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is that a vehicle (canter) CRM M-10766 of 2012 -2- bearing No.HR65-0965 make Eicher came from the side of Kaithal on 26.07.2011. The same was given signal to stop, however, the driver tried to run away with the vehicle. Police party followed the canter. The driver parked the vehicle and absconded taking benefit of darkness. On checking in the presence of DSP Guhla, it was found that canter was having 57 bags of poppy-husk weighing 40 kgs each i.e. total quantity of 2251 kgs of poppy-husk was recovered from the canter.
During investigation, it came out that said canter was owned by accused Amardeep son of Prithipal and Nishan Singh co-accused was driving the said canter. On further investigation, statement of Satbir Singh was recorded on 21.12.2011 in which he had stated that the canter No.HR-65-0965 owned by Amardeep and driven by Nishan Singh was following them. Amardeep co-accused introduced other co-accused including the present petitioners-accused to Nishan Singh. Nishan Singh was also interrogated and a diary was recovered from his possession mentioning the name of present petitioners-accused along with co-accused. Nishan Singh suffered disclosure statement that the recovered bags of poppy-husk were to be distributed amongst all the accused including the present petitioners-accused. It also came during investigation that Nishan Singh was using mobile phone No.977927003 and Richhpal Singh was using mobile phone No.8146326743. It came during further investigation that all the accused including the present petitioners-accused were in constant contact with each other. As per further police investigation, CRM M-10766 of 2012 -3- information of mobile phone number used by the present petitioners and other accused were also collected and call details were obtained.
Petitioners are absconding in this case. It has been stated by learned counsel for the State that they have already been declared proclaimed offenders, whereas report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed against co-accused.
It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioners-accused that they have been falsely implicated in this case after about five months of the alleged occurrence as police officials were inimical towards them and that earlier as well, an FIR was lodged against the present petitioners. Petitioners had lodged a complaint against the police officials of Guhla. The P.O. proceedings were quashed in that case and petitioners were directed to appear before learned trial Court to face the proceedings and in that case, they have already been acquitted. It is further contended that anticipatory bail application of one of the co-accused Subeg Singh has already been dismissed and other accused have not filed any bail application.
Case qua present petitioners is still at the stage of investigation. Investigation qua petitioners could not be completed as they are absconding and did not join the investigation. Involvement of present petitioners in this case has come in the statements of co-accused Satbir, Nishan Singh as well as from the call details of various mobile phones collected by the Investigating Officer and the diary maintained by co-accused Nishan Singh. CRM M-10766 of 2012 -4-
Hence, in view of the same, merely on the ground that names of present petitioners are not mentioned in the FIR and recovery has been effected from a canter, it is not a fit case for quashing of instant FIR qua the present petitioners, who are absconding.
The present petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) August 27, 2012. JUDGE Sachin M.