Criminal Misc. No.M-12681 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M- 12681 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 2nd, 2011 Nirmal Kaur and another ..... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) By filing this petition, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioners seek quashing of First Information Report (for short 'FIR) No.84 dated May 1st, 2009 (Annexure P/1) registered under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) Police Station – Sadar, Rajpura, District Patiala on the ground that their co-accused have been acquitted by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala by judgment dated December 8th, 2010 (Annexure P/3). 2. The above said FIR was registered against the petitioners and their three co-accused, viz. Amar Singh, Gurdhian Singh and Jai Singh. Petitioners could not be arrested by the Police. Both of them are Proclaimed Offenders. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that since the co-accused of the petitioners have been acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, so the arrest of the petitioners and putting them on trial would be abuse of process of law. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. D-638-DB of 2007 - Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal Vs. State of Punjab decided on March 17th, 2011. 4. In Sado Mandal's case (supra), the Division Bench of Criminal Misc. No.M-12681 of 2011 2 .. this Court, after re-apprising the evidence, acquitted the appellants and also quashed proceedings against their co-accused, 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 proceedings 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 Investigating 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 circumstances 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 labourers 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 accused against whom also there is no material on record to fasten Criminal Misc. No.M-12681 of 2011 3 .. them with the charge of 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 proceedings 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- petitioners because this Court is not sitting in appeal. 4. 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 charge against them. The petitioners, who are the Proclaimed Offenders cannot be given the benefit of said acquittal. Now, the prosecution can prove the charges against the petitioners by leading the evidence. Hence, this Court does not find any ground to quash the aforesaid FIR on the said ground. 5. Dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 02.05.2011. som Whether refer to reporter: Yes