Quashed

Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2012CRM-M/1719/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the FIR and proceedings against the petitioner, a proclaimed offender, after his co-accused were acquitted and the complainant compromised the dispute. Relying on precedent, the court held no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 141 dated 9.8.1984 and the order dated 3.1.1995 declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender were quashed qua the petitioner.

Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CRM No.M-1719 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-1719 of 2012 Date of decision:21.05.2012

Balbir Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶11

Present: Ms.J.J.Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. P.S.Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

Mr.Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶14

RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)

¶15

Quashing of FIR No.141 dated 9.8.1984 registered under Sections 379/511 of IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act at Police Station, Bhogpur and the order dated 3.1.1995 by which the petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender.

¶16

As per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant Avtar Singh was running his furniture shop at Adda Kala Bakra. Near his shop, Gopal Chand does electric work. On 9.8.1994 at about 8.00 pm, three persons came there and took a Bajaj Chetak scooter parked unlocked in front of the shop of Gopal Chand. Gopal Chand immediately caught hold scooter from its back side and in the meantime accused with long height took out a pipe type pistol from his dub and gave about 2/3 blows on the head of Gopal Chand. In

¶17

CRM No.M-1719 of 2012

¶18

¶19

this background, the impugned FIR was registered.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner has referred to a copy of judgment dated 2.11.1995 (Annexure P-3) by which two of the accused namely Harbhajan Singh and Pritam Singh were acquitted. He has further submitted that the present petitioner was declared proclaimed offender on 3.1.1995. He has further submitted that in compliance of the order dated 29.2.2011, the petitioner had caused his appearance before the trial Court and submitted his bail bonds, which were accepted by the trial Court on 20.3.2012. The copy of the order dated 20.3.2012 is taken on record as Annexure A-1. The affidavit of the complainant is already on record.

¶21

Counsel for the State does not controvert the said facts.

¶22

After going through the judgment dated 2.11.1995 (Annexure P-3), it transpired that the prosecution witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and they turned hostile and accordingly, the statements under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. were dispensed with. The accused Harbhajan Singh and Pritam Singh were acquitted.

¶23

This Court in Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal versus

¶24

State of Punjab, 2011 (2) RCR (Crl.) 453, a Division Bench of

¶25

this Court had an occasion to examine a case where three accused namely Radha Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal were facing trial under Section 302 IPC, and subsequently they had absconded and declared proclaimed offenders. In the trial, accused

¶26

CRM No.M-1719 of 2012

¶27

¶28

Sudo Mandal and Dharminder Mandal were convicted by the trial Court. Appeal of accused Sudo Mandal and Dharminder Mandal were allowed by observing that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish its case. While examining the case of the three accused, who had been declared proclaimed offenders, this Court, while exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the proceedings against the absconding accused on the ground that no useful purpose will be served if they are produced and ordered to face the trial.

¶29

In the present case, the petitioner has approached this Court on the ground that the other accused have been acquitted and it would empty formality of trial, which would ultimately lead to his acquittal. In the present case since no useful purpose will be served by asking the petitioner, who is proclaimed offender to face the trial.

¶30

According to affidavit, the complainant has compromised the instant dispute with the present petitioner and he has no objection if the present FIR is quashed qua the petitioner.

¶31

Consequently, in view of the above circumstances and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab 2008 (4) S.C.C. 582 and the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and another 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 1052, FIR No.141 dated 9.8.1984 registered under Sections 379/511 of IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act at

¶32

CRM No.M-1719 of 2012

¶33

¶34

Police Station, Bhogpur and the order dated 3.1.1995 are quashed qua the present petitioner keeping in view the facts of the present

¶35

case.

¶36

The petition stands disposed of.

¶37

21.05.2012 mks

¶38