Criminal Misc. No.M.36172 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M.36172 of 2011 Date of decision 30.11.2011. Vishal Bharti ...... Petitioner. versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. Present : Mr. Ritesh Bharati, Advocate for the petitioner. K.C.PURI, J. The present petition has been filed for quashing FIR No.75 dated 22.7.2004 under Sections 324, 323, 34, 307 IPC registered with Police Station, Civil Line, Batala District Gurdaspur on the ground that other co-accused of the petitioner have been acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 24.12.2010. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Prem Masih complainant on 19.7.2004 made statement that his son Ripan Masih was working with Jagdish Masih as labourer on daily wages, who was constructing house on the plot which was situated in front of his house where Sultan Bharti, father-in-law of Jagdish used hot words against Ripan Criminal Misc. No.M.36172 of 2011 2 and other laboures for doing less work and a minor altercation took place between Ripan and Sultan Bharti and thereafter all of them went to their houses. On next day on 20.07.2004, Ripan did not go for work at about 1.00p.m. Jagdish armed with Sota and Vishal Bharti armed with Datar resident of Prem Nagar Batala with their common intention came in front of their house and called his son Ripan to come outside at that time he was standing in the door of his house, in the meantime, Sultan Bharti also came there and raised lalkara to caught hold and he be taught a lesson for creating nuisance of yesterday then Vishal Bhati had given a datar blow straight to his son Ripan, which hit on the right side of his forehead, Jagdish gave sota blow to his son which hit on the left arm of his son then Vishal gave datar blow from reverse side which hit on his shoulder, at that time his neighbour Lal Masih, who was standing in front of his house, he and Lal Masih came forward to save Ripan then the assailants ran away from the spot. His son Rinku also came to the spot and who after making the arrangement of transport got his son admitted to civil hospital, Batala. The motive of the occurrence is that because of earlier dispute they have caused injuries to his son. On the basis of his statement, the present case was registered. Investigation commenced. Statements of PWs were recorded and after medical treatment to the injured and after completion of investigation challan against the accused was presented in the Court for trial. 3. The other co-accused Jagdish Masih and Sultant Bharti were put to trial whereas the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 22.10.2008. During the pendency of that case, other co-accused Criminal Misc. No.M.36172 of 2011 3 were acquitted on the ground that in the cross-examination, the complainant has stated that accused has not given injuries to Ripan Masih. From the perusal of the said judgment, it is revealed that it is mentioned that Vishal Bharti gave a datar which hit on the right side of forehead of Ripan Masih. Vishal Bharti gave another Datar blow on the right shoulder which hit on the right shoulder of Ripan Masih. So, specific injuries have been attributed. Other co-accused have been acquitted only on the ground that complainant has stated that the accused present before the Court had not inflicted the injuries to the injured. It is nowhere mentioned in the said judgment that complainant has stated that present petitioner has not caused any injury. So, the authority Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal vs. State of Punjab 2011 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 453 relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is not helpful to the case of the petitioner. Take the case from another angle, the petitioner had appeared before the trial Court during the pendency of the case but absented himself from the Court. The reasoning given in the present petition does not appeal to the reason and ultimately he was declared proclaimed offender. I am of the considered view that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in favour of the accused, who has himself absented from the proceedings of the Court and has been declared proclaimed offender. In view of the above discussion, the petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE November 30, 2011. sv. Criminal Misc. No.M.36172 of 2011 4