IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-41897 of 2007 Date of Decision: March 09, 2010 Gulzari Ram .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. C.L. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.244 dated 15.12.2000 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered with Police Station, Division No.4, Jalandhar and consequent proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at the point in time when the incident allegedly took place, the petitioner was in United Kingdom. Rather the petitioner has been Crl. Misc. No. M-41897 of 2007 [2] residing in United Kingdom since July 1964. It is a dispute between brother and sister. Co-accused have already been tried and have been acquitted. Rather complainant, Ram Piari did not support the prosecution version and has clearly stated that she did not move any application before the police, on account of which the prosecution was launched. Learned counsel for the respondent- State has not disputed the fact that co-accused have been acquitted. I have considered the rival contentions. Judgment rendered by the Trial Court has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. The ground on which the co-accused have been acquitted is contained in Para 12 of the judgment which reads as under:- “12. I have considered the contention of the ld. Defence counsel. There is no denying the fact that complainant Ram Piari has not supported the prosecution case. On the other hand she has denied any wrong doing on the part of her brother-Piara Singh and Gulzari Ram. She has also denied that she has ever moved any application to the police. In these circumstances, it is clear that the prosecution is admittedly devoid of the support of the complainant and any other independent witness.” Considering the above, I am of the considered opinion that no purpose in law would be served by continuance of proceedings against the petitioner. Continuance of proceedings in Crl. Misc. No. M-41897 of 2007 [3] such circumstances would result in wastage of time of the prosecution and the Court. It is a dispute between brother and sister which has culminated in acquittal of the co-accused. The petitioner, statedly, has been abroad since 1964. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be in the interests of justice to allow proceedings to continue against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No.244 dated 15.12.2000 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC registered with Police Station, Division No.4, Jalandhar and consequent proceedings are quashed. (AJAI LAMBA) March 09, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?