IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-20318 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:19.7.2011. Kuljinder Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …..Respondents. Criminal Misc. No. M-20706 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:19.7.2011. Gurpreet Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another …..Respondents. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate & Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH, J. (ORAL) This judgment would dispose of aforesaid two petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of First Information Report No.111 dated November 3rd, 2003 (Annexure P1) under Sections 148,307,323,324,326,341,452 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Lambra, District Jalandhar on the ground that co-accused were acquitted by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment dated April 24th, 2008 (Annexure P3). 2. The above said FIR was registered against the petitioners and their co-accused. During trial, petitioners absconded. They were declared Proclaimed Offender. 3. Learned counsels for the petitioners have urged that since the co-accused of the petitioners have been acquitted by the trial Court, so the Criminal Misc. No. M-20318 of 2011 -2- arrest of the petitioners and putting them on trial would be abuse of process of law. In support of their contentions, reliance has been placed upon 2011 (2) RCR (Criminal) 453 titled `Sudo Mandal alias Diwarak Mandal Versus State of Punjab’. 4. In Sado Mandal’s case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court, after re-appraising the evidence, acquitted the appellants and also quashed proceedings against their co-accsued, who absconded during the trial, primarily on the ground that there was no evidence against them. In paragraph 22, the Division Bench observed as under with regard to quashing of pending proceeding against other accused. “22. While disposing of these two appeals, we are very much concerned about the absconding village rustic accused namely Radha Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal, who had successfully evaded the dragnet of the police. The In- vestigating agency has put up a case implanting eye witnesses as against all the accused. Both the eye witnesses projected by the prosecution had not passed the test of trustworthiness. Their own showing would go to establish without any pale of doubt that they could not have witnessed the occurrence. The other materials produced by the prosecution also did not advance the case of the prosecution any further. The above facts and circum- stances have persuaded us to come to a definite conclusion that the accused in this case were not the perpetrators of crime of murder as alleged by the prosecution. The same set of materials would be produced before the Sessions Court on production of the remaining three accused namely Radha Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal. After all the poor innocent labour- ers had migrated to other places to eke out their livelihood. The appellants herein had in fact suffered imprisonment for such a long time leaving behind their kith and kin, who might have been in dire need of financial support and help from them. Such an unpleasant situation shall not be created for the other three ac- cused against whom also there is no material on record to fasten them with the charge of Criminal Misc. No. M-20318 of 2011 -3- murder. We seriously pondered over rendering judicial succor to those faceless and voiceless accused who had taken to heals and hidden themselves apprehending the wrath of criminal pro- ceedings for the heinous crime of murder. We are convinced that our judicial arm is not so crippled as to betray the vague hope of the hopeless.” This authority is of no help to the accused-petitioner because this Court is not sitting in appeal. 5. Normally, a person who is declared Proclaimed Offender, has to be required to first move the Court which declared him Proclaimed Offender and even an objection against validity of proclamation is required to be raised at the first instance before the Court which issued the proclamation. In this case, the co-accused have been acquitted because the prosecution could not prove the charges against them. The petitioners, who are the Proclaimed Offender, cannot be given the benefit of said acquittal. Hence, this Court does not find any ground to quash the aforesaid FIR on the said ground. 6. Dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that since the co-accused have been acquitted and the matter has been compromised between the parties as per compromise deed (Annexure P7), the petitioners be given an opportunity to surrender before the trial Court and trial Court be directed to release them on bail on filing of bail application by them. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances given hereinabove, it is ordered that petitioners shall appear before the trial Court on or before 1.8.2011 and move an application for bail and trial Court shall admit them to bail to its satisfaction. 9. Disposed of. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 19.07.2011. Ishwar