CRM No. M 19096 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 19096 of 2010 Date of decision: 05.10.2010 Dalbir Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No 13 dated 19.01.2003, under Section 323, 324, 341/34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar Nawanshahr, District Nawanshahr. The present FIR was registered on the statement of Mukhinder Pal Singh-respondent No. 2 against the present petitioner and his co- accused, namely, Avtar Singh under Section 323, 324, 341, 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Nawanshahar, District Nawanshahr. Upon completion of investigation, the challan was presented against the present petitioner and CRM No. M 19096 of 2010 2 his co-accused -Avtar Singh before the learned trial Court on 24.12.2003 and the petitioner was admitted to bail. The petitioner kept on appearing regularly before the learned trial Court. However, on account of petitioner's absence before the trial Court on 21.08.2006, non-bailable warrants were issued against him for 18.09.2006. Thereafter, he was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 28.11.2006. However, in pursuance to the order dated 07.07.2010 passed by this Court, the petitioner finally appeared before the trial Court and furnished his bail bonds which were duly accepted vide order dated 13.07.2010 passed by the JMIC, SBS Nagar. Keeping in view the facts of the present case, notice of motion was issued. Service was duly effected upon respondent No. 2/complainant. Reply has been filed by the State of Punjab – respondent No. 1. However, no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2 in spite of service. During the trial against Avtar Singh, respondent No. 2 did not come forward to complete his evidence after his examination-in-chief was partly recorded by the trial Court on 18.04.2007 despite issuance of numerous processes from time to time. It shall further be apposite to set out that the only other witness to the alleged occurrence, namely, Raghuvinder Pal Singh failed to even identify any of the accused during his cross examination. Further still, despite availing numerous opportunities during the trial for about five years, the prosecution had failed to conclude its evidence in the case. As such, the learned trial Court vide order dated 03.12.2008, closed the evidence of the prosecution and discharged the co- accused Avtar Singh by passing a detailed speaking and well reasoned order. CRM No. M 19096 of 2010 3 Learned counsel for the respondent - State, however, submitted that the petitioner cannot take advantage of the order dated 03.12.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahr, vide which, the petitioner's co-accused Avtar Singh was discharged and therefore the present petition should be dismissed. Heard. A perusal of the aforesaid order dated 03.12.2008 reveals that the prosecution failed to even conclude its evidence despite availing numerous opportunities and even respondent No. 2 -complainant failed to turn up for his evidence. The only other witness i.e. Raghuvinder Pal Singh has not supported the case of the prosecution. The same has resulted into discharge of the co-accused Avtar Singh. Respondent No.2/complainant has not even appeared before this Court to contest the present petition. Even the alleged witness of the occurrence has not identified the accused. Thus, it is not disputed that the case of the petitioner is on the similar footing as that of the co-accused. It is a case of no evidence. Thus, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present petitioner would be a futile exercise and wastage of precious time of the Court. The said argument of the State that the petitioner was not before the trial Court and as such he cannot take up the plea that the other witness has not supported the prosecution case, has no merit. Respondent No.2/complainant has not even turned up before this Court to contest the present petition. In view of the above, the pending of the present petition shall be nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the present CRM No. M 19096 of 2010 4 petition is allowed and FIR No 13 dated 19.01.2003 under Section 323, 324, 341/34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sadar Nawanshahr, District Nawanshahr and further proceedings arising out of the same are quashed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge October 05, 2010 mohan