Criminal Misc.No.M-20555 of 2010(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-20555 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 01, 2011 Gagandeep Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.G.S.Kaura, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent – State. 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.9 dated January 08th, 2006 registered under Sections 201, 307, 324, 448, 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”), in Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom on the ground that his co-accused have been acquitted by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana by judgment dated March 12th, 2010 (Annexure P-2). 2. The above said FIR was registered against the petitioner and his co-accused. The petitioner absconded before filing of the challan. He is proclaimed offender. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since the co-accused of the petitioner have been acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, 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 Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal Vs. State Criminal Misc.No.M-20555 of 2010(O&M) [ 2 ] of Punjab 2011 (2) RCR (Criminal) 453. 4. In Sado Mandal's case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court, after re-appraising 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 Criminal Misc.No.M-20555 of 2010(O&M) [ 3 ] 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 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 have been acquitted because the prosecution could not prove the charge against them. The petitioner, who is the Proclaimed Offender cannot be given the benefit of said acquittal. Now, the prosecution can find substance in the allegations, mentioned in the FIR and may file charge-report against the petitioner. Thereafter, on the basis of the evidence, to be brought on record, the Trial Court may find him guilty of the offence. Hence, this Court does not find any ground to quash the aforesaid FIR on the said ground. 6. Dismissed. September 01, 2011 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE