Crl. Misc. No. M- 25543 of 2008 Date of decision: January 8, 2009 Amarjit Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents Present: Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) has been filed seeking quashing of the complaint dated 2.11.2001 (Annexure P1) for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 366, 201 and 511 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, titled Harbind Singh v. Veeran Bai and others. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was 19 years of age when he was roped in by the complainant in the complaint dated 2.11.2001 (Annexure P1). The petitioner and his family, it is stated, are doing work of agricultural labour and he (petitioner) was unable to take the stigma of the complaint on his family as has been alleged by the complainant. So the petitioner in distress left his village and went to the State of Rajasthan to earn his livelihood. In his absence, he was declared a Proclaimed Offender on 24.9.2005. In the meantime, his co-accused Veeran Bai, Karnail Singh and Sandeep Singh were tried by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur and vide order dated 18.5.2006 (Annexure P2), they have been acquitted. Crl. Misc. No. M- 25543 of 2008 [2] Learned counsel has referred to the order dated 18.5.2006 (Annexure P2) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur acquitting the said accused to contend that the nature of evidence on record clearly shows that the offences as attributed to the co-accused of the petitioner would not make out any offence against the petitioner even. Therefore, it is submitted that the complaint and the consequential proceedings arising on the basis of the said complaint are liable to be quashed. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, I find no merit in the same. It is well-known that in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC, this Court is not to embark upon any inquiry and go into the truthfulness and veracity of the evidence recorded in the trial of other accused and reach at a finding as to whether the said evidence would make out an offence against the petitioner for that is the domain and function of the trial Court. The petitioner was declared a Proclaimed Offender on 24.9.2005. The evidence that has come on record has been appreciated by the learned trial Court, against the co-accused of the petitioner namely Veeran Bai, Karnail Singh and Sandeep Singh. The same is not the evidence that has appeared against the petitioner. Besides, the procedure provided by the law cannot be short-circuited or circumvented by ready resort to a petition under Section 482 CrPC. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE January 08, 2009 amit