The petitioner challenged the declaration of proclamation and sought quashing of the FIR. The single judge held that the petitioner is a proclaimed offender, not in India, and failed to join proceedings despite summons. The acquittal of co-accused is not enough to appreciate evidence against him. The petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No. M-16912 of 2013
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-16912 of 2013 Date of decision: 23.05.2013
Vijay Raj Chouhan
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: - Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner.
PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of FIR No.251 dated 28.12.1999 registered under Sections 452/342/323/506 IPC at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt., Haryana, and for quashing the proceedings dated 28.5.2008 (Annexure P-12) whereby petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender in the above-said FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that co-accused have been acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 21.10.2010 (Annexure P-3). The said judgment has been affirmed in an appeal by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 5.3.2012 (Annexure P- 4) and the revision preferred by the complainant has also been dismissed by this Court on 18.2.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgments in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 330 (SC) and in Jasvinder Singh vs.
-2-
Crl. Misc. No. M-16912 of 2013
State of Punjab and another, 2013(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 310 (P&H) to contend that even if the petitioner is declared proclaimed offender, it will not come in the way of quashing the FIR qua him.
I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Admittedly, the petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender. Earlier, petitioner was shown in column No.2 but was again summoned by the Court in pursuance of the application moved by the complainant/prosecution. Petitioner is still not in India and is staying abroad. Petitioner has been summoned by the Court and thereafter he never joined the proceedings before the Court. Merely because some coaccused have been acquitted by the Court, this Court cannot appreciate at this stage whether any evidence will be led against the petitioner or not. It will be for the trial Court to look into the evidence, which may be led before the Court. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
In view of the above, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge
May 23, 2013 R.S.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be allowed to quash FIR and proceedings despite the petitioner being declared a proclaimed offender.
Whether the acquittal of co-accused at the trial stage is a sufficient ground for this Court to quash proceedings against the proclaimed offender at this stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal KapoorReferred¶15
Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 330
Jasvinder Singh vs. State of PunjabReferred¶15
Jasvinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2013(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 310 (P&H)
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Vijay Raj Chouhan
State of Haryana
Paramjeet Singh, J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
