Manjinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM M-9251 of 2014 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-9251 of 2014 Date of decision : 14.01.2016 Manjinder Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:

Mr. NPS Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

RAJAN GUPTA J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 66 dated 16.06.2009 registered under sections 452, 380, 447, 511 & 34 IPC at police station Sudar, district Ludhiana alternatively for quashing of order dated 29.09.2010, Annexure P-2 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana whereby he has been declared a proclaimed offender. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that coaccused have been acquitted. According to him, petitioner was not in India at the time of registration of FIR. He has sought quashing on the ground that co-accused have been acquitted. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by subjecting him to trial. He has relied upon division Bench judgment of this court in Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal vs. State of Punjab 2011(2) RCR (Crl) 453 in this regard.

Prayer has been opposed by learned State counsel counsel. According to him, petitioner is a proclaimed offender. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Complaint was lodged by Jasmail Singh alleging that he AJAY KUMAR 2016.01.22 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document was a resident of England and had a house at village Boparai Kalan.

CRM M-9251 of 2014 -2On his returning to India, he noticed that lock of his house was broken and petitioner alongwith other accused had placed their weightlifting goods in his house and also put their own lock. Several other household articles were also stolen. On this statement, FIR was registered by the police. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the trial court. Finding prima facie case under sections 380, 447, 34 IPC charge was framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate its case against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence available on record was put to them.

They refuted the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. However, trial court came to the conclusion that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond doubt. It, thus, acquitted the accused who faced trial. Petitioner, however, absconded. He was declared proclaimed offender by the court on 29.09.2010.

In view of nature of allegations and the fact that petitioner is a proclaimed offender, I am not inclined to quash the impugned FIR. The factum of acquittal of co-accused is not relevant in light of judgment of this court in CRM M-13084 of 2014 titled as Munfed & anr. vs. State of Haryana wherein judgment in Sudo Mandal's case (supra) has been distinguished. Under the circumstances, present petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.

January 14, 2016 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE AJAY KUMAR 2016.01.22 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document