IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M 6161 of 2011 Date of decision: 02.04.2012 Baljinder Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mrs. Sushma Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, D.A.G. Punjab. Ms. Neha Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 6. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.357 dated 9.9.2004 under section 325,323,148,149 IPC PS Nakodar District Jalandhar the basis of compromise as well as on the ground that other co-accused are acquitted. The FIR in question was got registered by respondent No.2. However, the matter has been compromised due to the intervention of the respectables of the area. Compromise deed (Annexure P-4) has also been placed on record in this regard. The parties are present in the Court alongwith their respective counsel. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 6 has placed on record the affidavit of respondent No.2-complainant admitting the factum of compromise. As per the said affidavit, respondents No.2 to 6 have no CRM No. M 6161 of 2011 -2- objection if the FIR in question is quashed. Co-accused of the petitioner have already been acquitted by the trial Court. Thus, the fact that the petitioner has been declared proclaim offender should not stand in the way to quash the FIR in view of judgement rendered by this Court in Rajinder Singh alias Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and another 2003 (1) RCR (Criminal) 123. In the said judgement, while quashing the criminal proceedings in a petition by a proclaimed offender, it was held that a proclaimed offender cannot be granted indulgence, but having regard to the version of the complainant himself on oath before the Court, no purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings. This Court in the case of Sudo Mandal alias Diwarak Mandal v. State of Punjab passed in CRA No. D 638 DB of 2007, decided on 17.03.2011, held as under:- “23. We are conscious of the fact situation that those three accused namely Radha Mandal, Rijiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal had absconded and were declared as proclaimed offenders. They had not faced the trial, but when we find that no case could be made out as against them also with the very same rickety materials, those accused also will have to be relieved of the impending pain of facing the prosecution for murder. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:- “Saving of inherent powers of High Court- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be CRM No. M 6161 of 2011 -3- necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to present abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice”. Moreover, the matter has also been compromised. In the case of Gurpreet Singh alias Khinder v. State of Punjab, reported as 1995(2) RCR (Crl.) 127, somewhere, in similar circumstances, where the petitioner was charged for an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1985 as well as Sections 302/34 IPC and the FIR was quashed as the co-accused, who were arrested stood acquitted by the trial Court. It was held that where the evidence is same, continuation of proceedings in the case of the petitioner would result in waste of Court's time and unnecessary expenditure on State exchequer. In the case of Amarjit v. State reported as 1996(1) C C cases 465, the co-accused had been acquitted. The Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not required to undergo the ordeal of a trial, particularly, when the co-accused was acquitted. In the present case, it is not disputed that the evidence sought to be produced is same and not different than produced in the case of co- accused, who were acquitted. Moreover, the matter is compromised. In view of the above discussion and facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.357 dated 9.9.2004 under section 325,323,148,149 IPC PS Nakodar District Jalandhar and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 02.04.2012 rajeev