CRM No. M 45675 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 45675 of 2007 Date of decision: 09.02.2011 Smt. Mithlesh Shekhawat ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for Mr. Y S Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sidrath Sarup, DAG, Haryana for the respondent - State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P. C for quashing of FIR No, 397 dated 10.12.2003 under Sections 493, 494, 495, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal qua the petitioner. On the basis of statement of respondent No. 2, the aforesaid FIR was registered against the petitioner along with her co-accused, namely, Dhirender Singh Shekhawat son of Shri Sawai Singh Shekhawat. However, later on co-accused Dhirender Singh Shekhawat was acquitted, vide order dated 25.04.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal. The petitioner was not acquitted as the petitioner did not face trial as he did not CRM No. M 45675 of 2007 2 appear before the trial Court. However, subsequently, the petitioner in pursuance to the direction of this Court given on 14.072007, has put in appearance before the trial Court and her bail bounds have been accepted. While acquitting the co-accused, the trial Court has observed as under:- “ In view of the above said discussion and findings, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused Dhirender. However, there is no incriminating evidence against accused Mithlesh. Since the complainant Indu has specifically stated that she has not performed any marriage with accused Dhirender, hence only accused Dhirender is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. His bail bonds stand discharged. File be consigned.” It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, in his order dated 25.04.2005, while acquitting the co-accused of the petitioner has observed that there is also no incriminating evidence against Mithlesh Shekhawat – petitioner. Therefore, it would be a futile exercise for prosecuting and conducting trial for the present petitioner on the basis of the evidence already recorded during the trial of co-accused Dhirender Singh Shekhawat who has already been acquitted by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute 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 CRM No. M 45675 of 2007 3 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 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 CRM No. M 45675 of 2007 4 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 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 CRM No. M 45675 of 2007 5 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. In the present case, the co accused of the petitioner has been acquitted on account of the fact that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused Dhirender. The trial Court has also observed in its order dated 25.04.2005, while acquitting the co accused of the petitioner that there is no incriminating evidence against accused Mithlesh. It is not the case of the prosecution that there is different evidence qua the present petitioner. The evidence conducted by the prosecution against the co accused is one and the same. Thus, in case, the evidence is sought to be adduced is the same, it will unnecessary waste the time of the Court and the result is also likely to be the same as in the case of the co accused. CRM No. M 45675 of 2007 6 In view of the above discussion and facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 397 dated 10.12.2003 under Sections 493, 494, 495, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioner. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 9.02.2011 mohan