Criminal Misc. No. M- 14252 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 14252 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 16 nd, 2011 Roku Sandhu ..... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. G.S. Kaura, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) By this petition, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner seeks quashing of First Information Report (for short 'FIR) No.73 dated May 2 nd, 1997 (Annexure P-1) registered under Section 420, 465, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) Police Station Khanna, District Ludhiana on the ground that his co-accused has been acquitted by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna by judgment dated June 3 rd, 2010 (Annexure P-4). 2. The above said FIR was registered against the petitioner and his co-accused John Christoper. During trial, the petitioner absconded. He is proclaimed offender. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since the co-accused of the petitioner has been acquitted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna, so the arrest of the petitioner and putting him 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 17 th, 2011. 4. In Sado Mandal's case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court, after re-appraising the evidence, acquitted the Criminal Misc. No. M- 14252 of 2011 2 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 them with the charge of murder. We seriously pondered over rendering judicial succor to those faceless and Criminal Misc. No. M- 14252 of 2011 3 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- 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 has been acquitted because the prosecution could not prove the charge against him. The petitioner, who is the Proclaimed Offender cannot be given the benefit of said acquittal. Now, the prosecution can prove the charges against the petitioner by leading the evidence. Hence, this Court does not find any ground to quash the aforesaid FIR on the said ground. 6. Dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 16.05.2011. SN