In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-824 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:21.3.2009 Surender Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Raj Kapoor Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`C.P.C.' - for short) has been filed for quashing FIR No.370 dated 20.7.2008 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar for the offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 212 and 34 Indian Penal Code (`IPC' – for short) qua the present petitioner and all proceedings ensuing therefrom. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Himmat Singh, father of the prosecutrix. Admittedly, in the FIR the petitioner has not been named as the accused. The prosecutrix was recovered by the Police on 2.8.2008 from the house of her friend Bhawna in Meerut (UP). Her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Cr. Misc. No.M-824/2009 [2] Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar. In the said statement, the prosecutrix named the petitioner also as one of the accused who committed the offence of rape on her. It is specifically stated that the petitioner had raped her. Thereafter, the co-accused of the petitioner, namely Sukhwinder Singh Bawa and Jagga alias Joga Ram, Ram Parshad and Suman were sent-up for trial. During trial the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded as PW-1 and she resiled from her statement made before the Police as also under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She stated that she was taken in a car by unknown persons by smelling something. When she regained consciousness, she found herself in Delhi from where she went to her friend at Meerut. The accused who were present in the Court, namely, Sukhwinder Bawa and Jagga did not take her and none of them committed rape on her. Accused Suman, it was stated, did not entice her to go away with Jagga, Sukhwinder Bawa or any other person. The prosecutrix was declared hostile and cross- examined by the Public Prosecutor for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecutrix while deposing in Court on 6.1.2009 as PW-1 did not support the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that rather in her cross- examination she has given detailed version of the incident and she specifically stated that the accused including the petitioner had not raped her. It is submitted that in view of the said statement and on the basis of the evidence produced on record the other four accused have since been acquitted by the learned trial Court. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that though the other four accused have been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide judgment dated 6.1.2009, however, challan Cr. Misc. No.M-824/2009 [3] against the petitioner could not be filed as he was not traceable as he avoided his arrest. It is submitted that the prosecutrix has specifically named the petitioner as having committed rape on her in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The supplementary challan is liable to be filed against him. It is also submitted that the evidence recorded in the trial against the co-accused of the petitioner cannot be read in evidence against the petitioner. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court is not to embark upon an inquiry to consider and hold whether the offences are liable to be established on the basis of evidence and material on record. For that is the function of the trial Court and this Court is not to reduce itself to the said status. Moreover, the evidence recorded in the trial of four other co-accused of the petitioner is not to be read and gone into in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C as against the petitioner. The case against the petitioner may or may not be made out, however, the procedure provided for trial of accused cannot be short-circuited or circumvented by resorting to the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the circumstances, the prescribed procedure provided by law is to be followed and adhered to. There is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. The petitioner has been absconding although he has not been declared as proclaimed offender as yet. In the circumstances, in case the petitioner surrenders before the Police within ten days from the receipt of copy of this order and files an Cr. Misc. No.M-824/2009 [4] application for bail, his application for regular bail shall be considered on the same day. March 21, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*