HARWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") has been filed by Harwinder Singh praying for quashing of FIR No. 49 dated 1.3.2005 for offence under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Sadar Jalandhar and proceedings emanating therefrom. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the aforesaid FIR was registered at the instance of Jatinder Singh (respondent herein) against Amarjit Singh @ Savinder Singh son of Sewa Singh, his brother Surinder Singh and petitioner Harwinder Singh son of Surinder Singh and nephew of Amarjit Singh on the allegations that the accused came to their fields along with unidentified persons and caused injuries to his brother Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukha and the complainant. Amarjit Singh was declared as proclaimed offender. The other accused except Amarjit Singh, Surinder Singh and the petitioner, were put to trial. The petitioner and his father were summoned as additional accused under Section 319 of the Code after examination of Jatinder Singh as PW1. The petitioner was declared as juvenile and his case was separated from the remaining accused. It is submitted that the prosecution examined Dr. B.S.Johal PW1, Jatinder Singh, complainant PW2, Sukhvinder Singh injured PW3, HC Surjit Singh PW4, Iqbal Singh, alleged eye witness PW5, ASI Harpal Singh, Investigating Officer PW6, Ravinder Singh Bedi PW7, Mohinder Pal PW8 and another Investigating Officer of the case. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Jalandhar, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating evidence on record held that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and as a result, all the accused before the trial Court including Surinder Singh, father of the petitioner were acquitted of the offence charged against them. It is further argued that the judgment passed by the trial Court has not been challenged in appeal, therefore, it has attained finality. It is argued with vehemence that Jatinder Singh and Sukhjinder Singh, the material witnesses in the case have attributed same role to the petitioner as was assigned to Surinder Singh and since Surinder Singh has been acquitted of the offence charged against him, no useful purpose would be served by continuation of criminal proceedings against the present petitioner, who was a juvenile, thus being tried separately. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgments of this Court in Raj @ Hukam Chand alias Nanha vs. State of Haryana, 2002 3 RCR(Cri) 653, Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal vs. State of Punjab, 2011 2 RCR(Cri) 453, Kulwant Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, 2011 2 RCR(Cri) 649 and Gurwinder Singh @ Mintu vs. State of Punjab, 2012 3 RCR(Cri) 360.

(2.) Counsel for the contesting respondent, on the contrary would argue that it would be appropriate in the circumstances that the matter should be left for consideration of the trial Judge, who would examine the matter in the light of findings recorded in the criminal trial. However, the fact that the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Jalandhar dated 30.4.2007 in favour of other accused has attained finality, has not been disputed. In support of his contention, he has referred to the judgment of this Court in Jasbir Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2002 4 RCR(Cri) 299.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the records.