CRM No. M 3658[SECTION] of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M 3658[SECTION] of 2011 Date of decision: 27.02.2012 [ENTITY] Petitioner Versus [ENTITY] and another Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice [ENTITY] -.- Present: Mr. JBS Gill, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. [ENTITY], DAG, Punjab Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for respondent No. 2 - complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? [ENTITY], J. (Oral)
This is a petition under [SECTION] [ACT] for quashing of FIR No. 110 dated 29.07.2003 under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT], P.S. Mahilpur District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 - complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
The complainant is present in Court along with his counsel and filed his affidavit in Court today, stating therein, that aforesaid FIR was got registered by him against the present petitioner, [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. Accordingly, [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were made to face trial. However, during trial, the dispute between all the accused persons was amicably settled. As a result thereof, the said [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were acquitted by the trial Court as the prosecution witnesses did not support the case. In the affidavit, he also stated that he does not want to pursue the case against the present petitioner also.
It is contended that the petitioner is proclaimed offender. It is also pointed that the co-accused of the petitioner have been acquitted on account of no evidence.
Taking into account that the co-accused of the petitioner have already been acquitted by the trial Court, the fact that the petitioner has been declared proclaim offender should not stand in the way to quash the said FIR in view of judgment rendered by this Court in [PRECEDENT]
123. In the said judgment, while quashing the criminal proceedings in a petition by a proclaimed offender, it was held that a proclaimed offender cannot be granted indulgence, but having regard to the version of the complainant himself on oath before the Court, no purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings.
This Court in the case of Sudo Mandal alias Diwarak Mandal v. [ENTITY] passed in [CASE NUMBER], decided on 17.03.2011, held as under:-
"23. We are conscious of the fact situation that those three accused namely [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] 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] of the [ACT] 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 present abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice".
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] The State (N.C.T of Delhi) 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 2[SECTION]6, held that in the case, where the co-accused have been acquitted, it would not be in the interest of justice to permit the accused to be subjected to a trial when the end result is more than clear and subjecting the accused to trial would be an exercise in futility.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT], held that:-
"29. No embargo, be in the shape of [SECTION] of the [ACT] or any other such curtailment, can whittle down the power under [SECTION] of the [ACT]"
While relying on the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, this Court in the case of Jobanjit Singh vs. [ENTITY] and others (Crl. M No. 10033 of 2009, decided on 29.07.2009) quashed the proceedings declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender by observing as under:-
"Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, order dated 23.12.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar (Annexure P-3) declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender, FIR No. 38 dated 05.07.2000, registered at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar, under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT] (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner.
Similar view by was also held by this Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. [ENTITY] and another (CRM M 1238 of 2007, decided on 29.01.2007).
In the case of Gurpreet Singh alias Khinder v. [ENTITY], reported as 1995(2) RCR (Crl.) 127, somewhere, in similar circumstances, where the petitioner was charged for an offence under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] as well as [SECTION] [ACT] 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 ini 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 v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others reported as 1988 (1) RCR 565 by observing in para [SECTION] 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."
In the case of Amarjit v. State reported as 1996(1) C C cases [SECTION]65, 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.
It is not disputed that the evidence against the petitioner is no different than that in the case of co-accused who were acquitted and if sent for trial, they too would be acquitted.
In view of the above discussion and facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 110 dated 29.07.2003 under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT], P.S. Mahilpur District Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.
Allowed in the aforesaid terms.
([ENTITY]) Judge 27.02.2012 mohan