IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-8544 of 2010 Date of decision: 20.4.2010 Keharo @ Kehar Kaur …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent Present: Mrs. Baljit Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. *** S.S. SARON, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) seeking quashing of the order dated 14.8.1999 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nawanshahr whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender in case FIR No.105 dated 20.9.1998 registered at Police Station Banga District Nawanshahr for the offences under Sections 379, 411/34 Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that the petitioner is an illiterate old lady and has been falsely implicated in an old incident of chain snatching. The name of the petitioner is Keharo @ Kehar Kaur. In the FIR it has been alleged by the complainant Rupinder Kaur that on the date of the incident i.e. 14.8.1999 at about 11.30 a.m., she along with her son aged about 31/2 years Crl. Misc. No. M-8544 of 2010 [2] was standing in front of the bus-stand, Guru Tek Bahadur Gate, Banga. Other passengers were also standing. The complainant was to go to Nawanshahr. In the meantime, a bus came and the complainant and her son started boarding the bus. A woman aged 45 years came and stood in front of the complainant while two women stood behind her. The complainant felt that something was being removed from her neck. She started looking for her chain and pendent which was missing. She then raised a hue and cry and the women standing behind her tried to run away. In the meantime, the police official to whom the statement was given along with other officials came at the spot and with the police help, the two women were apprehended. They disclosed their names as Preeto wife of Kala and Satya wife of Jagir Singh. The name of the woman who had accompanied them was disclosed as Dogri wife of Lalu. She had escaped from the spot. The complainant came to know that these women had snatched chains of others also. A request was made for taking action. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not named in the FIR. However, she is being implicated in the case as the third lady namely Dogri who had escaped at the time of the incident. It is submitted that the name of the petitioner is Keharo @ Kehar Kaur. Her parentage and residential address is different from that of Dogri. The petitioner is the wife of late Shingara Singh and is resident of Mansoorpur (Chhitanwala), Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala whereas the ladies mentioned in the FIR including Dogri are residents of village Bhaike Bagrian, Police Station Amargarh, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur. The petitioner does not know any person by the name of Dogri wife of Lalu. However, the police is now claiming that the said Dogri as mentioned in the FIR is the other name of the petitioner. It is submitted that this is not Crl. Misc. No. M-8544 of 2010 [3] supported by any evidence whatsoever. The police submitted an application dated 19.12.2007 (Annexure P1/A) in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahr seeking judicial remand of Satya @ Tejo, the other accused. In the said application (Annexure P1/A), it is mentioned that Dogri @ Parmeshwari @ Keharo wife of Lalu @ Shingara Singh was involved in the incident of chain snatching. The name of the petitioner, her parentage and address is supported by the identity card dated 28.4.1995 (Annexure P2) issued by the Election Commission of India. The husband of the petitioner namely Shingara Singh has died and she is living with her son namely Surinder Singh and his family members. The copy of the ration card dated 1.1.2004 (Annexure P3) issued by the Food and Supplies Department, Nabha in the name of Surinder Singh son of Shingara Singh has been placed on record. In the said ration card, the name and residence of the petitioner is mentioned. The Panchayat of village Mansoorpur (Chhitanwala) vide Panchayat Nama dated 26.2.2010 (Annexure P4) has also certified that petitioner is resident of said village for the last 25-30 years. It is also submitted that the challan was prepared against Preeto and Satya on 10.7.1999 and presented in Court on 4.1.2004. The other accused namely Dogri was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 14.8.1999 (Annexure P1). It is stated that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation in the case as and when required as also establish the identity of the accused Dogri. In response, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been absconding since the registration of FIR and was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 14.8.1999 (Annexure P1). It is submitted that the name of the petitioner is Dogri as well and this fact has been mentioned in the application dated 19.12.2007 (Annexure P1/A) Crl. Misc. No. M-8544 of 2010 [4] which was filed by the Police for obtaining judicial remand of the co- accused Satya @ Tejo who was also declared a proclaimed offender and was arrested outside her house in village Bhaike Bagrian. In the said application (Annexure P1/A) it is mentioned that Preeto and Dogri @ Rameshwari @ Keharo wife of Lalu @ Shingara resident of Chhitanwala, Police Station Nabha had snatched the chain and pendent from the neck of Rupinder Kaur, complainant. The gold chain and pendent were recovered from Preeto and Satya @ Tejo who were arrested at the spot. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner had no dispute about her identity. The circumstances of the case are that one lady namely Dogri wife of Lalu along with her co-accused Preeto and Satya @ Tejo had removed the necklace and pendent from the neck of the complainant Rupinder Kaur. The ladies who were arrested at the spot gave their names as Preeto and Satya @ Tejo. They gave the name of other lady who had escaped as Dogri wife of Lalu. In the order dated 14.8.1999 (Annexure P1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nawanshahr, proclamation of accused Dogri was issued which was received back. Accordingly, Dogri was declared as a proclaimed offender. In the said order, it is not shown that the said Dogri who was declared as proclaimed offender was also known by the name of Keharo @ Kehar Kaur. The possibility of Preeto and Satya @ Tejo giving a wrong name of the third accused cannot be ruled out. However, that is not to prejudice the rights of the petitioner. The police was to correctly establish the identity of the third person who had escaped and proceeded in accordance with law against her. From the material placed on record as referred to above, it is quite evident that except in the application (Annexure P1/A), there is nothing to show that the petitioner Keharo @ Kehar Kaur who is the wife of late Shingara Singh Crl. Misc. No. M-8544 of 2010 [5] is also known by the name of Dogri wife of Lalu. Moreover, the petitioner has expressed her willingness to join the investigation and surrender. Keeping in view the fact that there may be some mistake regarding identity of the petitioner and the order dated 14.8.1999 (Annexure P1) whereby proclamation has been issued and Dogri has been declared a proclaimed offender it is alleged relates to the petitioner, it would be just and expedient to quash the same subject to the condition that the petitioner joins the investigation and also furnishes her personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed and the order dated 14.8.1999 (Annexure P1) whereby the petitioner is stated to have been declared a proclaimed offender is quashed subject to the condition that the petitioner shall surrender before the learned trial Court within three days from the receipt of copy of the order. However, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be admitted to bail subject to her furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The petitioner shall thereafter join the investigation and shall be dealt with in accordance with law. In case the petitioner does not surrender, the order dated 14.8.1999 (Annexure P1) shall remain operative. Crl. Misc. petition is accordingly disposed of. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE April 20, 2010 amit