Crl. Misc. No. M-21331 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-21331 of 2008 Date of Decision : July 01, 2009 Balwinder Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. G. S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Balwinder Singh-petitioner, who is Assistant Sub Inspector in Punjab Armed Police, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – the Code) for quashing FIR No.46 dated 09.02.2005, under Section 3/4 of Immoral Traffic Act, registered at Police Station Sunam, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1), along with all consequential proceedings. According to prosecution version, secret information was received that Rajesh Kumar used to bring some ladies for flesh trade from Bathinda to Bombay Palace, Sunam, owned by Sarabjit Singh @ Poppy, where both of them indulged in flesh trade by taking money from persons. On 09.02.2005 as well, the date of secret information, said Rajesh Kumar Crl. Misc. No. M-21331 of 2008 2 had brought some ladies from Bathinda to Sarabjit Singh at Sunam, where besides both of them, one Aman and some other persons were indulging in flesh trade. Consequently, raid was conducted and from Bombay Palace, Sunam, Rajesh Kumar, Toni Kumar, Preeti, Pooja and Sonia Verma were apprehended. Two persons namely Sarabjit and Aman were said to have escaped. It is alleged by the prosecution that during investigation, Rajesh Kumar accused disclosed that he used to bring ladies from Bathinda to Sunam as per programme set out by the present petitioner and Sarabjit Singh, Aman and Happy and on the day of occurrence as well, all of them were present there. This version was corroborated by Sonia Verma, Pooja and Preeti all co-accused. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner was not even named in the FIR nor his presence at the spot was mentioned in any document either on 09.02.2005 or in statements of witnesses recorded on 10.02.2005. It is also contended that lady ASI Amarjit Kaur in her statement dated 10.02.2005 (Annexure P-4) made to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code stated that only two persons had escaped from the spot and those two persons were identified by ASI Vijay Kumar to be Sarabjit Singh @ Poppy and Aman. It is accordingly contended that the petitioner was not even alleged to have escaped from the spot. Attention of the Court is also drawn to the statement (Annexure P-3) of Hemraj, an independent witness, recorded on 10.02.2005, who has not even stated that any person escaped from the spot. It is further contended that statements of petitioner's co-accused Rajesh Kumar, Sonia Verma, Pooja and Preeti made to the police during investigation/interrogation are not even admissible in evidence. It is, therefore, contended that there is no admissible evidence against the Crl. Misc. No. M-21331 of 2008 3 petitioner for prosecuting him. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that petitioner's name cropped up for the first time on 11.02.2005 during interrogation of co-accused Rajesh Kumar and also during interrogation of Sonia Verma, Pooja and Preeti. However, it is conceded by learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Darshan Singh, that there is no statement of any witness recorded under Section 161 of the Code regarding involvement of the petitioner in the alleged flesh trade. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. As noticed herein above, no witness has made any statement under Section 161 of the Code during investigation regarding involvement of the petitioner in the alleged flesh trade. Statements of co-accused Rajesh Kumar, Sonia Verma, Pooja and Preeti made to the police during investigation are not even admissible in evidence against the petitioner. The said statements were made by them before the police being in custody as accused in the case. The said statements are, therefore, not admissible in evidence nor the said co-accused are to be examined as witnesses against the petitioner. Except statements of said co-accused, there is not even a shred of evidence collected during investigation against the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for any offence under the impugned FIR. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and FIR No.46 dated 09.02.2005, under Section 3/4 of Immoral Traffic Act, registered at Police Station Sunam, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) is quashed along with all consequential proceedings as against the petitioner Balwinder Singh only. July 01, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE