1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Padam Singh (Padam Chand) & Anr. V/s. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1201/2010 S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Date of Order :: November 25, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. S.S. Sunda for the petitioners. Mrs. Alka Bhatnagar PP for the State. Faced with investigation in FIR No. 208/2008 registered at Police Station Rajgarh, District Alwar, the petitioners have approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.06.2008, at about 5:25 PM, a FIR, FIR No.208/2008, got registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 302 IPC and for the offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act at Police Station Rajgarh, District Alwar at the instance of Hari Singh with regard to the alleged incident of very same date against eight persons including petitioners and including ten to twelve other un-named persons. According to the FIR, co-accused Chhatar Singh opened firearm upon Man Singh. Consequently, Man Singh 2 died. According to the petitioner, during investigation, co- accused persons namely, Chatar Singh, Bona and Sube Ram were arrested. After completing the investigation, challan was filed against the aforesaid three accused persons for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 324 and 302 IPC, and challan under Sections 173(8) Cr.P.C. was kept pending against the petitioners as they could not be arrested. During trial, most of the prosecution witnesses including eye-witnesses turned hostile. After recoding the evidence and considering the other materials on record, vide judgment dated 22.01.2010, the learned trial Court acquitted the co- accused persons namely Chatar Singh, Bona and Sube Ram. Hence, this petition for quashing of FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that it is a case of single fire arm injury; the witnesses had attributed the said injury to Chatar Singh. But, vide judgment dated 22.01.2010, the learned trial Court has acquitted Chatar Singh and other co-accused persons. Since the petitioners could not be arrested, since the investigation against them is still pending, the petitioners pray that the FIR against them should be quashed. According to the learned counsel, even if the same set of witnesses were asked to depose before 3 the Court, no purpose would be served by putting the petitioners for trial. For, the witnesses are bound to turn hostile even in the present case. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are unacceptable for the following reasons:- (i) According to the learned counsel, the witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. However, there is no presumption in law that once the witnesses have turned hostile, they would continue to do so in the trial of the other co-accused persons. Therefore, the mere acquittal of the other co- accused persons does not strengthen the case of the petitioners. (ii) Secondly, admittedly the petitioners could not be arrested by the police. They have come out of their hinding once the other co-accused persons have been acquitted. Now they have approached this Court for quashing of the FIR. However, the said conduct, if allowed by this Court, would motivate other people to run away from the law and to wait and see if other co-accused persons are acquitted. In case they are, the remaining co- accused persons cannot be permitted to seek the quashing of the FIR. Such a conduct would motivate the people to 4 violate the law and to run away from the clutches of law. Thus, merely because the other co-accused persons have been acquitted cannot be a valid reason for quashing of FIR. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.Asopa/-