Crl. Misc. No.M-45080 of 2007(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-45080 of 2007(O&M) Decided on : 14-09-2009 Roor Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.B.S.Teji, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for respondent no.4. MAHESH GROVER, J This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of FIR No. 91 dated 11.5.2002 registered at P.S. Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala under Sections 323, 324, 326, 160, 148, 149 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The allegations which were made in the FIR pertain to the number of persons who have alleged to have violated the property right of the petitioner in order to take forcible possession thereof. They are also said to have committed offence under Sections 3 and 4 of Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioner did not face the prosecution whereas the co-accused suffered the consequences of the trial. During the Trial, PW1 has stated that some unidentified persons with muffled faces were digging the foundation and when he stopped them from doing so, they attacked him and when he raised alarm his wife and son Crl. Misc. No.M-45080 of 2007(O&M) 2 came to his rescue they were also injured. He has further stated that accused persons present in the Court were not those persons. He was declared hostile and was subjected to cross examination by the Public Prosecutor. During cross examination he denied having given any statement to the police. He admitted his signatures on Ex.PW1/A but volunteered to state that his signatures were obtained on a blank paper by the police. Similarly, PW 2 and PW4 attributed injuries to some unidentified persons who were having their faces muffled and stated that accused persons facing trial were not those persons. They were also declared hostile. In the backdrop of the events, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that no fruitful prupose will be served by making the petitioner face the rigours of trial because complainant and all injured persons have not supported the case of the prosecution. He further contends that even if it is assumed that he was named in the FIR then also complainant and other injured persons have disowned the statements recorded by the police which clearly absolve him of his culpability. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has stated that there is no reason to accept the present petition because earlier one another petition was filed by the petitioner with a similar prayer which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one. Learned counsel for State has also opposed the prayer. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case when complainant and other injured persons have categorically denied having made any statement before the police and this fact was also extracted from them during cross examination by the Public Crl. Misc. No.M-45080 of 2007(O&M) 3 Prosecutor, I am of the considered opinion that this evidence has clearly breached the case of the prosecution. Complainant has disowned the statement given to the police on the plea that it was recorded by the police after obtaining his signatures of a blank paper. Therefore, the prosecution story even if subjected to further proceedings in the case of the petitioner is not likely to result in any conviction. In this view of the matter and also keeping in view the observations of Gurpreet Singh alias Khinder versus State of Punjab 1995 (2) RCR(Crl.) 127 and Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia versus Sambhajirao Chandrojirao 1988(1) RCR (Crl) 565 I deem it appropriate to accept the present petition and direct quashing of FIR No. 91 dated 11.5.2002 registered at P.S. Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala under Sections 323, 324, 326, 160, 148, 149 IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner. September 14 , 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge