Crl. Misc. No. M-22406 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-22406 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 27, 2011 Ranbir Singh and others .... Petitioners Vs. Jagdish .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. R. N. Lohan, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Ranbir Singh and four others have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for quashing criminal complaint no. 15 of 1999 dated 05.05.1999 (Annexure P- 1), instituted by Jagdish – respondent. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that petitioners' co-accused Parveen etc. stand acquitted by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, vide judgment dated 12.07.2007 (Annexure P- Crl. Misc. No. M-22406 of 2011 2 3), and therefore, prosecution of the petitioners would be abuse of the process of the Court. I have carefully considered the contention, but the same cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the petitioners have been declared Proclaimed Offenders. They were very well aware of the pendency of the complaint when their co-accused were facing trial. In spite thereof, the petitioners did not appear before the trial Magistrate and submit themselves to the process of law. Even after acquittal of co-accused, the instant petition has been filed after four years. The instant petition is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioners cannot be said to be at par with the co-accused who have been acquitted because one of the said co-accused was residing in foreign country but was implicated falsely. There are also other circumstances distinguishing the case of the petitioners with that of the co- accused, who stand acquitted. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal vs. State of Punjab reported as 2011 (2) R. C. R. (Criminal) 453. However, the said judgment is completely distinguishable on facts. In that case, convicts had preferred appeal, wherein it was found that the eye- witnesses had been planted. In these circumstances, proceedings against three accused, who were declared Proclaimed Offenders, were quashed exercising suo motu power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The said judgment Crl. Misc. No. M-22406 of 2011 3 has no applicability to the facts of the instant case. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the instant case, no justification for exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned criminal complaint is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed, without expressing any opinion on merits of the impugned complaint. July 27, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE