Allowed

Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Jan 2012CRM-M/12005/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge writ petition challenging summoning order where petitioner charged alongside acquitted co-accused. Court allowed petition, setting aside lower court orders, noting quashing serves interest of justice as evidence was inseparable and identical.

What did the court decide?

Summons order dated 14.5.2008 by JMIC Dhuri and order dated 8.12.2009 by Addl. Sessions Judge Sangrur set aside.

Amrit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. M. No.M-12005 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:11.1.2012

Amrit Singh

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶7

.... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

Present: Mr. Jasbir Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, D.A.G. Punjab.

¶10

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)

¶15

The petitioner herein is challenging the summoning order dated 14.5.2008 passed by Ld. JMIC, Dhuri vide which he was summoned on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.290 of 13.11.2005 under Sections 323/324/506/447/34 IPC and order dated 8.12.2009 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangrur.

¶16

During the pendency of the present petition, the co-accused of the petitioner stand acquitted vide order and judgment dated 17.9.2011 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri.

¶17

It is stated that the said order of acquittal has been passed on account of compromise having been effected between the parties. As such, there is no evidence against the accused in the said FIR.

¶18

It is not disputed that the evidence qua the present petitioner is also identical.

¶19

In the case of Gurpreet Singh alias Khinder vs. State of Punjab reported as 1995(2) RCR (Crl.) 127, somewhere in similar

¶20

Crl. M. No.M-12005 of 2010 (O&M) -2-

¶21

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 coaccused, 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

¶22

another vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others reported as 1988 (1) Recent CR 565 by observing in para 4 as under :-

¶23

“ 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

¶24

Crl. M. No.M-12005 of 2010 (O&M) -3-

¶25

though it may be at a preliminary stage.”

¶26

In another case, the Single Bench of Delhi High Court titled as Urmila Devi vs. The State (NCT of Delhi), (Delhi) reported as 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 246 while relying on various judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court and the other High Courts quashed the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 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 :-

¶27

“5. 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 v. State, 81 (1999) DLT 197 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

¶28

Crl. M. No.M-12005 of 2010 (O&M)

¶29

-4-

¶30

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 coaccused 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:-

¶31

“3. 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 Sat Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1974 SC 294 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.”

¶32

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

¶33

Crl. M. No.M-12005 of 2010 (O&M) -5-

¶34

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.

¶35

However, it is submitted that the petitioner is proclaimed

¶36

offender.

¶37

This Court in the case of Rajinder Singh @ Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana and another 2003(1) RCR (Criminal)123 while quashing of criminal proceedings in a petition by a proclaimed offender held that a proclaimed offender cannot be granted indulgence, but having regard to the version of the complainant himself on oath before the Court, no purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings.

¶38

Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Urmila Devi v. The State (N.C.T. of Delhi) 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 247 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.

¶39

In any case, the present petitioner was found innocent by the Investigating Agency. Thereafter, he was summoned in an application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 14.5.2008 and the revision filed against the said order was also dismissed vide order dated 8.12.2009. The co-accused of the petitioner having been acquitted by the trial Court on the basis of compromise, the evidence against the petitioner being almost same, no useful purpose would be served, in case the petitioner is made to face trial.

¶40

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and order dated

¶41

Crl. M. No.M-12005 of 2010 (O&M) -6-

¶42

14.5.2008 passed by Ld. JMIC, Dhuri and order dated 8.12.2009 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangrur are set aside.

¶43

11.1.2012 rajeev

¶44

( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE

Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulab Singh Vs State of Punjab

Suba Singh Vs State of Punjab

Pawan and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Varinder Kumar and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Nirwair Singh and Anothers Vs Daljit Kaur

P. Uday Kumar and Ors. Vs M/S Kirpa Rice Mills