IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-11460 of 2011 Dated: 29.04.2011 Amrik Singh ..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Guninder Singh Brar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Amit Kahar, Advocate for respondent No. 2. **** RITU BAHRI, J.(ORAL) This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 123 dated 1.10.2005 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 323, 324, 148 and 149 IPC (offence under Section 326 was added lateron) at Police Sadar Kapurthala, District Kapurthala. After investigation the challan was presented against eight accused namely Amrik Singh (Petitioner), William, Palwinder Singh, Jagtar Singh, Sonu Singh, Tarsem Singh, Raghbir Singh and Sukhwant Singh. During the course of trial, petitioner left for Spain in the year 2007. Vide judgment dated 11.02.2010, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala all the seven accused were acquitted. A perusal of judgment shows that the prosecution witnessess including the complainanat injured Balkar Singh did not support the prosecution version. However, the petitioner absconded. On 30.1.2009, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender. Crl. Misc. No. M-11460 of 2011 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had left for Spain in the year 2007. The proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner is present in India and in view of the judgment dated 11.2.2010 the petitioner may also be acquitted. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has put in appearance and has filed compromise deed dated 7.4.2011 between the complainant- respondent No.2 and the petitioner and the same is taken on record as Annexure A-3 and affidavit of Balkar Singh alias Mangu, (complainant- respondent No. 2). Respondent No. 2-complainant is present in the Court and is duly identified by his counsel. As per the affdavit, matter has now been settled between the parties and he (respondent No. 2) has no objection if the FIR is quashed with all consequential proceedings. As per the compromise, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender and later on misunderstandings were removed with the mediation of the respectables. A compromise between the parties was effected. Amrik Singh made statement before the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala in favour of the other accused who were appearing the trial of the case and as such they were acquitted by said court vide judgement dated 11.2.2010. The present setttlement has been arrived at between the parties without any force or pressure. In Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal versus State of Punjab a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 17.3.2011 had an occasion to examine a case where three accused namely Radha Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal were facing trial under Section 302 IPC, and subsequently they had absconded and declared proclaimed Crl. Misc. No. M-11460 of 2011 -3- offenders. In the trial, accused Sudo Mandal and Dharminder Mandal were convicted by the trial Court. Appeal of accused Sudo Mandal and Dharminder Mandal were allowed by observing that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case. While examining the case of the three accused, who had been declared proclaimed offenders, this Court, while exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the proceedings against the absconding accused on the ground that no useful purpose will be served if they are produced and ordered to face the trial. In the present case the FIR has been quashed qua the co-accused, the petitioner have approached this Court on the ground that the other co- accused have been acquitted and it would be an empty formality of trial, which would ultimately lead to their acquittal. In the present case since no useful purpose will be served by asking the petitioners, who are proclaimed offenders to face the trial. In view of the aforesaid FIR is quashed with all consequential proceedings. The petition stands disposed of. (RITU BAHRI) 29.04.2011 JUDGE Poonam (II)