Crl. Misc. No.M-24236 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-24236 of 2008 Date of Decision: 07.02.2011 Krishan Singh s/o Mangat Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Rajeev K. Kapila, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No.129 dated 27.07.1999 registered under Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and Section 26 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 registered at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya. The facts, in short, are that the FIR was registered on the complaint of Senior Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Tanda against 196 persons who were alleged to be unregistered medical practitioners and Crl. Misc. No.M-24236 of 2008 2 this complaint was made on the basis of letter by Director Health & Family welfare, Punjab Chandigarh. After thorough investigation, the challan was presented in March 2005 against the petitioner and other nine co-accused persons but no recovery was effected neither there was any witness to support the allegations of the prosecution that the petitioner was also practicing as unauthorized medical practitioner and was administering allopathic medicines to people of the area. Thereafter, the challan was presented against co-accused Kulwinder Singh and others in separate trials and against Joginder Singh in separate trial and the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya after holding a full trial acquitted the accused persons vide judgment dated 16.10.2004 and judgment dated 10.03.2005 while holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond any shadow of doubt. The copies of the judgment dated 16.10.2004 and judgment dated 10.03.2005 are placed on record as P-2 and P-3, respectively. Reply has been filed by the State. The facts are not disputed. It is, therefore, admitted that the co-accused of the petitioner with similar allegations stand acquitted. It is also not disputed that the evidence against the present petitioner is also the same. In the case of Gurpreet Singh alias Khinder vs. State of Punjab reported as 1995(2) RCR (Crl.) 127, somewhere in similar circumstances, where the petitioner was charged for an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, as well as, Sections 302/34 IPC 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 in the said case against the petitioner were quashed while relying on the judgment of Hon'ble the Crl. Misc. No.M-24236 of 2008 3 Apex Court rendered in the case titled as Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others reported as 1988(1) Recent CR 565 by observing in para 4 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 another case, the Single Bench of Delhi High Court titled as Urmila Devi vs. The State (NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) reported as 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 246 while relying on various judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court and the other High Courts quashed the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 304-B/34 IPC, as all the co-accused were acquitted and there was no question of invoking Section 34 IPC. Para 5 of the said judgment reads as under :- “5. The learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the judgment dated 24.09.2003 to show the manner in which the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses and, particularly, by the mother and sisters of the deceased (Meenu) have been discussed in detail by the trial court and have been found to be untrustworthy. He then referred to the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar v. State, 81(1999) DLT 197 wherein, also, the co-accused had Crl. Misc. No.M-24236 of 2008 4 been acquitted while the petitioner therein had been absconding and, therefore, the trial could not proceed against him. Subsequently, after the co-accused were acquitted, the petitioner, in that case, surrendered before the Additional Sessions Judge and sought his discharge on the ground that the other accused had been acquitted of the offences under Sections 148/302/149 IPC. Rejecting that prayer, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had framed a charge under Sections 304/34 IPC against the petitioner therein. However, this court set aside that order and concluded that the trial would only mean a wastage of time inasmuch as it was of the view that the evidence against all the accused persons was inseparable and indivisible and, therefore, when the co-accused had been acquitted, there was no reason to treat the petitioner differently on the basis of the same evidence. Paragraph 3 of the said decision is relevant and it reads as under:- “3. The question thus is as to whether in the face of the judgment of acquittal the petitioner should still be permitted to undergo the ordeal of a trial. In Sat Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1974 SC 294 it was held that there is no rule of law that if the Court acquits some of the accused on the evidence of a witness raising doubt with regard to them the other accused against whom there is absolute certainly about his complicity in the crime based on the remaining credible part of the evidence of that witness must be acquitted. But where the evidence against all the accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and if some of the accused persons have been acquitted, the remaining accused persons cannot be treated differently on the basis of the same evidence.” In the case of Amarjit vs. State reported as 1996(1) C.C. Cases 465, 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. Crl. Misc. No.M-24236 of 2008 5 In paras 5 and 6 of the petition, it is specifically stated as under:- “5. The same statement was given by the Senior Medical Officer in the case of Kulwinder Singh etc. and in the case of Joginder Singh, wherein also the same set of evidence was lead by the prosecution in the form of the photocopy of letter dated 08.04.1998, in which, the Court held that since the original letter is not produced in evidence, therefore, it is not proved and the PW-3 Dr. Gurmail Singh gave same statement that he never recovered anything from the accused persons and the Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case beyond any shadow of doubt. 6. In the present case also, despite last opportunity being given to the prosecution, the prosecution has failed to conclude its evidence and even if the evidence lead, so far, by the prosecution is considered, it is the same as in the earlier cases, as referred above, and in view of the judgments passed in the case of co-accused, it could be very conveniently construed that the trial of the present case would also result in same as the prosecution has not recovered anything from the petitioner also neither there is any independent witness to support the version that anyone saw the petitioner practicing as medical practitioner.” It is admitted that the evidence is same qua the petitioner. Thus, in case, the evidence is sought to be adduced is the same, it will unnecessary waste the time of the Court as the result is also likely to be same as in the case of the co-accused. In fact, same co-accused approached this Court by filing petitions for quashing vide CRM No.60777-M of 2006, which was allowed on 08.01.2007 and CRM No.M-4069-M of 2006 which was allowed on 10.05.2006, wherein, this Court quashed the proceedings and FIR while returning finding that the Crl. Misc. No.M-24236 of 2008 6 continuance of proceedings in such cases, wherein, trial is not going to result in conviction, in these circumstances the FIR and the proceedings are liable to be quashed. In view of the above discussion and facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.129 dated 27.07.1999 under Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and Section 26 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 registered at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 07.02.2011 JUDGE gurpreet