Kulwant Singh vs State of Punjab and Another

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. Nos..M-37861, 22739 and 23418 of 2010 as the issue involved in the present

cases is identical and the FIR is common in all the above mentioned cases. The facts are being derived from Crl. Misc. No. M-37861 of 2010.

This is a petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 18 dated 16.03.2010 under Sections 307, 395, 148, 149, 109

IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Sherpur, District Sangrur and subsequent proceedings thereof on the

basis of compromise.

Notice of motion was issued and Mr. D.R. Singla, Advocate appeared and accepted notice on behalf of Respondent No. 2.

The facts, in short, are that FIR No. 18 dated 16.03.2010 under Sections 307, 395, 148, 149, 109 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms

Act was registered at Police Station Sherpur, District Sangrur on the basis of the statement made by one Kamaljit Singh son of Amrik Singh. The

said occurrence took place on 16.03.2010. In this incident, the accused party and the complainant party were injured and a cross case i.e

DDR/Rapat No. 19 dated 16.03.2010 was registered under Sections 307/395/148/149 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act on the

basis of the statement made by one Rachhpal Singh son of Dhanna Singh resident of Sangrur.

It was stated by learned Counsel for the parties that the matter has been compromised and the complainant party on both sides had got no

objection, if the FIR No. 18 dated 16.03.2010 under Sections 307/395/148/149 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act registered at Police

Station Sherpur, District Sangrur against all the Petitioners in Crl. Misc. No. M-22739 of 2010 and the Petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-37861 of

2010 is quashed and further the complainant-Rachhpal Singh has no objection, if the DDR/Rapat No. 19dated 16.03.2010 in cross,. case is

quashed qua the Petitioners in the Crl. Misc. No. 23418 of 2010.

No doubt, the matter has been compromised. However, the offence being u/s 307 IPC, the same cannot be quashed on the basis of

compromise.

However, it is pertinent to mention here that challan was presented in the instant case before the trial Court against some of the other co-

accused of the Petitioner. The complainant party did not support the prosecution version at all. As a result, some of the Petitioners in all the above

Crl. Misc. petitions have already been acquitted by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 08.12.2010.

The Petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-37861 of 2010 was never named in the FIR. He was never challaned, whereas, all the Petitioners in Crl.

Misc. No. M-23418 of 2010 have been acquitted except Petitioner No. 9- Lakhvir @ Lakha, Petitioner No. 11-Jagjit Singh, Petitioner No. 16-

Devinder Singh. These three Petitioners were never arrested. As such, they did not face trial.

The Petitioners in Crl. Misc. No. M-22739 of 2010 have also been acquitted except Petitioner No. 2-Arshdeep (5) Bittu, Petitioner No. 4-

Goldy Pehalwan @ Jatinder Singh, Petitioner No. 5-Hardeep Singh @ Deepa, Petitioner No. 7-Sukhi @ Sikhvir Singh, Petitioner No. 8-Gagan

Gulati, Petitioner No. 12-Neeta, Petitioner No. 13-Rajwinder Singh Deepi and Petitioner No. 14-Bhupinder Singh. The said Petitioners also did

not face trial as they were never arrested.

It is not disputed that the Petitioners were never declared proclaimed offender.

It is evident from the order and judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur dated 08.12.2010 that some of the co-accused in FIR

No. 18 dated 16.03.2010, as well as, the co-accused in the cross-case were acquitted. They were acquitted as the complainant Kamaljit Singh,

injured-Raja Singh and Gurmeet Singh and other eye witness never supported the prosecution story at all. It was the complainant-Kamaljit Singh,

who was declared hostile by the Public Prosecutor and was cross examined but the Public Prosecutor could not extract anything incriminating from

him. PW-3 Gurmeet Singh also did not support the prosecution story. The eye-witnesses vide separate statement submitted that no occurrence

took place in their presence and they do not know the accused. All the witnesses were examined at length but the guilt could not be established.

As such, the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur acquitted all the accused in the FIR and the cross case against whom charges were framed. Para

9 of the judgment reads as under:

So since the complainant Kamaljit Singh, injured Raja Singh and Gurmeet Singh and other eye witnesses never supported the prosecution story

at all and as such the Public Prosecutor had closed the evidence by submitting that testimonies of the remaining witnesses are of formal in nature

and in case they are examined it will not improve the prosecution story at all and as such in these circumstances this Court has no other option

rather to acquit all the accused of the charges framed against them. Accordingly all the accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them.

Case property be dealt with according to the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

In fact, it appears from the perusal of the above judgment as if all the Petitioners have been acquitted even those who were not facing trial and

only charges were framed till now against them.

Even otherwise, in the case of Gurpreet Singh alias Khinder v. State of Punjab reported as 1995 (2) RCR (Cri) 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 in 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 Anr. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors.

reported as 1988 (1) Recent CR 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 another case, the Single Bench of Delhi High Court titled as Urmila Devi v. The State (NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) reported as 2007 (1) RCR

(Cri) 246 while relying on various judgments of -Hon''ble the Apex Court and the other High Courts cuashed the proceedings against the Petitioner

u/s 304-B/34 IPC, as all the co-accused were acquitted and there was no question of invoking Section 34 IPC. Para 5 of the said judgment reads

as under:

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner took me ""through the judgment dated 24.09.2003 to show the manner in which the evidence led by the

prosecution witnesses and, particularly, by the mother and sisters of the deceased (Meenu) have been discussed in detail by the trial court and

have been found to be untrustworthy. He then referred to the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Vs. State,

wherein, also, the co-accused had been acquitted while the Petitioner therein had been absconding and, therefore, the trial could not proceed

against him. Subsequently, after the co-accused were acquitted, the Petitioner, in that case, surrendered before the Additional Sessions Judge and

sought his discharge on the ground that the other accused had been acquitted of the offences under Sections 148/302/149 IPC. Rejecting that

prayer, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had framed a charge under Sections 304/34 IPC against the Petitioner therein. However, this Court

set aside that order and concluded that the trial would only mean a wastage of time inasmuch as it was of the view that the evidence against all the

accused persons was inseparable and indivisible and, therefore, when the co-accused had been acquitted, there was no reason to treat the

Petitioner differently on the basis of the same evidence. Paragraph 3 of the said decision is relevant and it reads as under:

The question thus is as to whether in the face of the judgment of acquittal the Petitioner should still be permitted to undergo the ordeal of a trial.

In Shri Sat Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, it was held that there is no rule of law that if the Court acquits some of the accused on the evidence of a

witness raising doubt with regard to them the other accused against whom there is absolute certainly about his complicity in the crime based on the

remaining credible part of the evidence of that witness must be acquitted. But where the evidence against all the accused persons is inseparable and

indivisible and if some of the accused persons have been acquitted, the remaining accused persons cannot be treated differently on the basis of the

same evidence.

In the case of Amarjit v. State reported as 1996 (1) C.C.C. 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.

In the present case also, the facts, as stated above, are that the co-accused of the Petitioners have been acquitted on account of the fact that

neither the complainant nor the eye witness nor the injured witness have supported the prosecution story. In fact, there is no evidence at all. It is

not the case of the prosecution that there is different evidence qua the present Petitioners. The evidence conducted by the prosecution against all

the accused is one and the same. Thus, in case, the evidence is sought to be adduced is the same, it will unnecessary waste the time of the Court

and the result is also likely to be the same as in the case of the co-accused, all the witnesses were declared hostile. The co-accused have been

acquitted on the ground of no evidence at all"".

In view of the above, it would be a futile exercise to continue the proceedings against the Petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-37861 of 2010,

Petitioners No. 9,11 and 16 in Crl. Misc. No. M-23418 of 2010 and Petitioners No. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 14 in Crl. Misc. No. M-22739 of

2010. The other Petitioners in the above mentioned petitions, in any case, have already stand acquitted.

In view of the above discussion and facts, the present petitions are allowed and FIR No. 18 dated 16.03.2010 under Sections 307, 395, 148,

149, 109 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Sherpur, District Sangrur and subsequent proceedings, as well

as, cross case registered vide DDR/Rapat No. 19 dated 16.03.2010 under Sections 307/395/148/149 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the

Arms Act are hereby quashed qua the Petitioners as mentioned in the above paragraph.