Criminal Misc. No. M-27425 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-27425 of 2010 Date of decision:-09.5.2011 Karam Pal @ Pinku ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Virk, DAG Haryana. RITU BAHRI J. Petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No.165 dated 16.9.2003 under Section 18 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Guhla, District Kaithal, challan report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. dated 06.7.2004, Order dated 05.10.2006, judgments dated 14.6.2008 and 03.1.2009. The FIR was registered against one Ram Pal son of Shri Gaje Singh resident of Village Theh Navel, Police Station Guhla, District Kaithal on the allegations that on 16.9.2003 a motor-cycle bearing registration No.HR-09A-4288 and one kilogram of opium was recovered from Ram Pal. A supplementary challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented on 06.7.2004 against the petitioner as well as Rishi Pal and Main Pal. After framing of charge the trial proceeded in the trial Court. The petitioner went abroad in the year 2005. He lost his passport and could not returned to India. Vide order dated 05.10.2006 (Annexure P-5) the trial Court declared the petitioner as proclaimed offender. Criminal Misc. No. M-27425 of 2010 -2- Vide judgment dated 14.6.2008 (Annexure P-6) the trial Court acquitted both the co-accused Main Pal and Rishi Pal. Subsequently vide separate judgment dated 03.1.2009 Ram Pal was acquitted from whose possession the opium was recovered. It is not out of place to mention that Rampal was declared as proclaimed offender by the trial Court. Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's mother is very ill and in view of the fact that when three co-accused have already been acquitted no useful purpose is served by putting the petitioner into trial. The evidence led in the trial of the co-accused will be led against the petitioner. The petitioner was not named in the FIR. One kilogram opium had been recovered from Ram Pal on 16.9.2003. Vide supplementary challan the petitioner was arrayed as one of the accused. Once the main accused Ram Pal has been acquitted, there is no likelihood of the petitioner to be held guilty on the same set of evidence. More particularly when the co-accused Main Pal and Rishi Pal were acquitted vide Annexure P-6. He has referred the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal versus State of Punjab in Criminal Appeal No.D-638-DB of 2007 decided on 17.3.2011, in which this Court had quashed the proceedings against the co-accused, who was facing the trial under Section 302 IPC and was declared proclaimed offender. When the other co-accused had been acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. As per Division Bench of this Court that no useful purpose will be served by putting the petitioner to the same proceedings of the trial, which would result in the acquittal. Counsel for the State Mr. P.S. Virk, DAG Haryana has not disputed the factual position that all the three co-accused have been acquitted vide judgments Annexure P6 and P-7. He has pleaded that three inquiries had been conducted by CIA Staff in the year 2003. The findings of all the three inquiries Criminal Misc. No. M-27425 of 2010 -3- contrary to each other. Finally an inquiry was conducted by Shri Jarnail Singh, Inspector CIA Staff, who found that the petitioner alongwith co-accused was involved in illegal trafficking of NDPS Act. He has not disputed that the co- accused Ram Pal, Main Pal and Rishi Pal have been acquitted after facing the trial almost 8 years. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully. The Special Judge, Kaithal vide judgment dated 14.6.2008 (Annexure P-6) acquitted two co-accused namely Rishi Pal and Main Pal on the ground that the inquiry conducted was on the ground that the persons, who had made the statements in the inquest report, was not examined in the Court and their statements could not be substantive evidence. Co-accused Ram Pal was also acquitted on the same grounds. In view of the above findings in the judgment, there is no doubt that no case can be made out against the present petitioner also. The inherent powers of the Court should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. At the same time, the jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of process of Court is not ruled out. Applying the ration of judgment in Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal versus State of Punjab (supra) this Court has no hesitation to quash the entire proceedings against the absconding accused Karam Pal @ Pinku pending before the courts below as no useful purpose will be served even if he is procured and ordered to face the trial in this case. May 09, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE