Criminal Misc. No.75698-M of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.75698-M of 2006. Date of decision:-08.5.2008. Jasminder Singh and others ...Petitioners. Versus Kashmira Singh ...Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. K.G.Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Satnam Singh, Advocate for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL J. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide judgment dated November 1, 2006 passed by this court in Criminal Misc. No.34428- M of 2005, Kehar Singh v/s Kashmira Singh the complaint in question filed by respondent has been quashed in a petition filed by one of the accused Kehar Singh. Accordingly, the prayer is for quashing of the complaint in the case of the present petitioners as well as they are similarly situated. A perusal of the complaint shows that besides Kehar Singh the present petitioners were also added as accused in the complaint (Annexure P-3) which was filed way back on August 18, 1990. The petitioners were summoned to face trial on March 29, 1994. The complaint in the case of Kehar Singh's case (supra) was quashed by this court with the following observations vide judgment dated November 1, 2006:- “The conceded position in this case is that incident of the year 1990 is being dragged on at the behest of the Criminal Misc. No.75698-M of 2006 -2- complainant from the last sixteen years. Delay in this case, which is clear attributed to the conduct of the complainant in itself is enough to end the further ordeal of the petitioner. Making the petitioner to face this prolonged and protracted proceedings that too after his acquittal in the FIR case has clearly resulted in violation of the fundamental right of life and liberty of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Not only this, the petitioner is being vexed with these proceedings once over again, though he was able to earn his acquittal in the criminal case arising out of the FIR. The principle of doctrine of jeopardy and the one laid down in this regard under Section 300 Cr.P.C. would also certainly come to the rescue of the petitioner. It is clear that the petitioner has suffered enough and his sufferings must now come to an end. The present proceedings against the petitioners are nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and as such may not be allowed to continue any further.” For the detailed reasons recorded in Kehar Singh's case (supra) the complaint dated August 18, 1990 pending before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. The petition is disposed of accordingly. 8th May, 2008. (RAJESH BINDAL) asija JUDGE