CRM No. M- 13185 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M- 13185 of 2011(O&M) DECIDED ON:- 29.07.2011 Sanjeev Kaushal ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, D. A. G. Punjab. **** MAHESH GROVER, J(Oral) CRM No. 40062 of 2011 CRM is allowed. Annexure P5 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. CRM No. M-13185 of 2011 This is a petition for quashing of the complaint Annexure P1, which is initiated by the complainant against the petitioner and four others namely Pandit Mohan Lal, Ram Murti, Naveen Kumar and Smt. Usha Rani who faced the trial and in the said proceedings they were acquitted. Learned Trial Court concluded that if the averments of the complaint are to be seen then the allegations of uttering derogatory words have been attributed to all the persons and allegations are suggestive of the fact that such words were uttered in unison. The petitioner did not face the trial as he was living abroad and in his absence, he was declared proclaimed offender. He then moved an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for interim protection in order to enable him to appear before the learned trial Court. The protection was granted in CRM No. M-14510 of 2011. The petitioner thereafter has put in appearance as is evident from the order of the learned trial Court dated 19.5.2011 and which has been extracted in the CRM No.40062 of 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that if the CRM No. M- 13185 of 2011(O&M) 2 averments of the complaint are to be seen then under no circumstances can any Court come to a different conclusion than whatsoever was arrived at earlier and therefore, persistence of the proceedings against him is unlikely to result into his conviction and thus prays that the complaint be quashed. On due consideration of the matter and perusal of the allegations leading to the filing of the complaint as contained in para 5 of the complaint which is extracted here below:- “ That on 16.9.2007 all the accused came to the house of the complainant and illegally tress passed and remarked to come out of the house. The complainant, his father and Charan Dass, Jagjit Singh Sandhu, Girish Kumar and Tarsem Lal etc. came Jang Bahadur out. All the accused then abused the complainants and remarked “Tussi Churhian Ne Gandh Paya Hoia Hai, Tohanu Mohalla Vich Narhin Rehan Dena and Assi Mohalla Wale Tohanu Majja Chakhawan Ge Ke Yaad Karo Ge.” Many people were present when the accused remarked. All the accused with common intention had insulted the complainant in the presence of the people within the public view. The complainant requested them not to quote the case of the complainant and when insisted they further remarked that they are planning to socially boycott the complainant and his family. The complainant feel insulted because of the abuses of the accused. All the accused also abused the complainant 'Toon Kutta Chamaar' and further remarked that they deserve only leather business and not the industry, nor they are authorized to live in the locality of high caste. The matter was reported to the police of P.S.Divn. No.1, Jalandhar but they did not take any action hence this complaint.” From the above, it is apparent that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner and this is the very reason which weighed with the learned trial Court to conclude that in the absence of any clear role attributed to the accused persons, the prosecution was unable to prove its case and thus granted them the benefit of doubt. No appeal has been preferred against the said judgment of acquittal to the co-accused of the petitioner. In such a situation, the petitioner deserve the parity of CRM No. M- 13185 of 2011(O&M) 3 reasoning recorded in the order dated 21.12.2009 awarding acquittal to the co-accused of the petitioner. For the said reasons, it would be a frutile exercise to permit the proceedings to continue against the petitioner when the same are not likely to result in his conviction. The petition is thus, accepted. Complaint Annexure P1 and all consequent proceedings arising there from against the petitioner are quashed. (MAHESH GROVER) 29.07.2011 JUDGE mamta