Karnail Singh vs State of Punjab and another

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 86 dated 23.06.2007 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 34 IPC, Police Station Rupnagar (Annexure P-1) which was got registered by respondent No. 2 -complainant against the present petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 26.01.2012 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Complainant-Parvinder Singh as well as eye witness-Surinder Singh are present in Court along the counsel and have filed their respective affidavits, stating therein that with the intervention of respectables and family friends, the matter has been compromised on 26.01.2012. In the said affidavits, it is also mentioned that the all other accused have been acquitted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 27.01.2012. It is also mentioned that the petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender by the trial Court vide order dated 25.10.2010. They have no objection if the said FIR is quashed.

Taking into account that the co-accused of the petitioner have already been acquitted by the trial Court, the fact that the petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender should not stand in the way to quash the cross case in view of judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Sudo Mandal alias Diwarak Mandal v. State of Punjab passed in CRA No. D 638 DB of 2007, decided on 17.03.2011, held as under:-

The above provisions recognize the inherent powers of the Court to do real and substantial justice, preventing the abuse of the process of the Court. The statutory recognition of the inherent jurisdiction of the criminal Court indicates that there is a power for the criminal Courts to make such an order as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice. We are conscious of the fact that the powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are to be exercised very sparingly and in exceptional cases where abuse of the process of the Court would result in serious miscarriage of justice. The inherent powers of the Court should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution. But at any rate the settled position is that this Court has the jurisdiction to quash the entire criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court in order to secure the ends of justice. In our considered view the same inherent powers can be exercised when this Court finds that the innocent accused, who had absconded would simply face the empty formality of trial with the very same unbelievable and untrustworthy evidence, which would ultimately lead to their acquittal. Bringing the absconding accused to face the trial in this case in the above facts and circumstances would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. To secure the ends of justice, we hereby quash the entire proceedings as against the absconding accused namely Radha Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal pending before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda/Sessions Judge, Bathinda, as no useful purpose will be served even if they are procured and ordered to face the trial in this case.

Hon''ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Urmila Devi v. The State (N.C.T of Delhi) 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 246, held that in the case, where the co-accused have been acquitted, it would not be in the interest of justice to permit the accused to be subjected to a trial when the end result is more than clear and subjecting the accused to trial would be an exercise in futility.

While relying on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Shakuntala Sawhney Vs. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and Others, , this Court in the case of Jobanjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (Crl. M No. 10033 of 2009, decided on 29.07.2009) quashed the proceedings declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender by observing as under:

Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the matter has been compromised between the parties, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the prosecution. Accordingly, order dated 23.12.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar (Annexure P-3) declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender, FIR No. 38 dated 05.07.2000, registered at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar, under Sections 323, 325, 341, 148, 149 IPC (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioner.

Similar view by was also held by this Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (CRM M 1238 of 2007, decided on 29.01.2007). In the case of Gurpreet Singh alias Khinder v. State of Punjab, reported as 1995(2) RCR (Crl.) 127, somewhere, in similar circumstances, where the petitioner was charged for an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1985 as well as Sections 302/34 IPC and the FIR was quashed as the co-accused, who were arrested stood acquitted by the trial Court. It was held that where the evidence is same, continuation of proceedings in the case of the petitioner would result in waste of Court''s time and unnecessary expenditure on State exchequer. The proceedings ini the said case against the petitioner were quashed while relying on the judgment of Hon''ble the Apex Court rendered in the case titled as Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others reported as 1988 (1) RCR 565 by observing in para 4 as under:-

The local position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are weak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.

In the case of Amarjit v. State reported as 1996 (1) C C cases 465, the co-accused had been acquitted. The Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not required to undergo the ordeal of a trial, particularly, when the co-accused was acquitted.

Moreover, in the present case, the matter has been compromised. It is not disputed that the evidence in the case of petitioner is also same. Thus, allowing the petitioner to go through trial is futile as it is not likely to result in conviction.

In view of the above discussion and facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 86 dated 23.06.2007 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 34 IPC, Police Station Rupnagar (Annexure P-1) and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed. Allowed in the aforesaid terms.