Crl. Misc. No. M-16014 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-16014 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.7.2010 Davinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.62 dated 4th May, 2008, registered against the petitioner under Sections 307, 323, 324, 120-B read with Section 34 IPC and order dated 17th April, 2009 (Annexure P-6), passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirhind declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that at the time of alleged occurrence, the petitioner was in village Kokri Kalan in District Moga while the occurrence took place at Sirhind which is 100 K.Ms away. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner has wrongly been arrayed as an accused in the FIR and the same deserves to be quashed qua him. This apart, the petitioner never came to know about the presentation of challan and thus, did not appear before the trial court. According to him, he was wrongly declared proclaimed offender by the Crl. Misc. No. M-16014 of 2010 2 court below as non-appearance of the petitioner before the said court was due to the fact that he was not aware of the proceedings. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that FIR in the case was lodged on the statement of Malwinder Singh Padher, who stated that on 8th March, 2008, he had gone to Sirhind (Punjab) alongwith his family. On 1st May, 2008 at 8.30 P.M. after purchasing shoes for his children, he was entering his Indica car bearing No. PB-12Y-4949, when one fashionable young man came from behind and held his neck. He inflicted a Kirch blow on the face of the complainant injuring his nose and left cheek. Second blow of Kirch was inflicted on right side of his stomach. Certain other injuries were also inflicted on the complainant due to which he raised alarm. The assailant fled away in a Maruti car. Later the complainant came to know that when injuries were being inflicted, two unknown persons were present at the spot in a car to help the assailant to flee. Name of the petitioner surfaced during investigation conducted by the police. In view of this, argument of the counsel that FIR qua the petitioner deserves to be quashed as he was not present at the scene of occurrence, is devoid of merit. The plea of alibi raised by the petitioner can only be gone into at the stage of trial as the same would essentially require some evidence to be led before the court. As regards plea for quashing of the order, Annexure P-6 declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender, learned counsel has not been able to Crl. Misc. No. M-16014 of 2010 3 point out any legal infirmity with the same. On the other hand, it appears that the petitioner has been trying to evade the process of law for quite some time. Reliance on inquiry report submitted by Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, as reproduced in para 5 of the petition, is also misplaced. The Investigating Officer after having conducted a detailed investigation and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case arraigned the petitioner as an accused and his name has figured in the final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. I am, thus, of the considered view that no interference is called for in inherent jurisdiction of this court. The petition is totally devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 5.7.2010 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No