Criminal Misc.No.M-24203 of 2010(O&M) -[1]- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-24203 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 07, 2011 Tarsem Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.A.S.Kalra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sudhir Nehra, Additional, Advocate General, Punjab for respondent – State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) By this petition, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner seeks quashing of First Information Report (for short 'FIR) No.5 dated January 21st, 2003 registered under Sections 379, 411, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”), in Police Station Kartarpur, District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom on the ground that his co-accused Gurdip Singh has been acquitted by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar by judgment dated February 25th, 2009 (Annexure P-2). 2. The above said FIR was registered against the petitioner and Gurdip Singh. The petitioner absconded during trial. He is proclaimed offender. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since co-accused of the petitioner has been acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar so the arrest of the petitioner and putting him on trial would be abuse of process of law. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal Vs. State of Punjab 2011 (2) RCR (Criminal) 453. 4. In Sado Mandal's case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court, after re-appraising the evidence, acquitted the appellants Criminal Misc.No.M-24203 of 2010(O&M) -[2]- and also quashed proceedings against their co-accused, who absconded during the trial, primarily on the ground that there was no evidence against them. In paragraphs 22 and 23, the Division Bench observed as under with regard to quashing of pending proceedings against other accused. “22. While disposing of these two appeals, we are very much concerned about the absconding village rustic accused namely Radha Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal, who had successfully evaded the dragnet of the police. The Investigating agency has put up a case implanting eye witnesses as against all the accused. Both the eye witnesses projected by the prosecution had not passed the test of trustworthiness. Their own showing would go to establish without any pale of doubt that they could not have witnessed the occurrence. The other materials produced by the prosecution also did not advance the case of the prosecution any further. The above facts and circumstances have persuaded us to come to a definite conclusion that the accused in this case were not the perpetrators of crime of murder as alleged by the prosecution. The same set of materials would be produced before the Sessions Court on production of the remaining three accused namely Radha Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal. After all the poor innocent labourers had migrated to other places to eke out their livelihood. The appellants herein had in fact suffered imprisonment for such a long time leaving behind their kith and kin, who might have been in dire need of financial support and help from them. Such an unpleasant situation shall not be created for the other three accused against whom also there is no material on record to fasten them with the charge of murder. We seriously pondered over rendering judicial succor to those faceless and Criminal Misc.No.M-24203 of 2010(O&M) -[3]- voiceless accused who had taken to heals and hidden themselves apprehending the wrath of criminal proceedings for the heinous crime of murder. We are convinced that our judicial arm is not so crippled as to betray the vague hope of the hopeless. 23. We are conscious of the fact situation that those three accused namely Radha Mandal, Rajiya 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 necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” This authority is of no help to the accused-petitioner because this Court is not sitting in appeal. 5. Normally, a person who is declared Proclaimed Offender, has to be required to first move the Court which declared him Proclaimed Offender and even an objection against validity of proclamation is required to be raised at the first instance before the Court which issued the proclamation. In this case, co-accused Gurdip Singh has been acquitted because the prosecution could not prove the charge against him. The petitioner, who is the Proclaimed Offender cannot be given the benefit of said acquittal. Now, the prosecution can lead evidence against him and the Trial Court may find him guilty of the offence. Hence, this Court does not find any Criminal Misc.No.M-24203 of 2010(O&M) -[4]- ground to quash the aforesaid FIR on the said ground. 6. Dismissed. September 07, 2011 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE