BHAGWAN SINGH AND ORS Vs. STATE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The ground for seeking quashment of the proceedings is that the names of the petitioners were not mentioned in the FIR nor the same were revealed by the witnesses in the report under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is contended by the petitioners that initially they were cited as witnesses to depose against the accused persons involved in the case which they refused to do so. It is stated that in order to pressurize the petitioners, they have been falsely implicated in the present case. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) As noticed above, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., has been filed before the trial court and according to the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is yet to be taken up for framing of the charge. Petitioners, thus, have an appropriate remedy to agitate all the issues regarding their non-complicity with the accused persons in the commission of the crime at the time of framing of the charge. That occasion is yet to come and the petitioners will be well within their rights to bring all these facts to the notice of the court below.

(3.) The proceedings before this court in the present set of circumstances would be uncalled for the reason that the power of this court to interfere in the present proceedings arises only if there is no other remedy available to the accused under the Code. It is only to meet the ends of justice and to ensure that there is no abuse of process of law that the power has been conferred upon this court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When the petitioners have an appropriate remedy before the trial court to argue on the charge, then, the present remedy, as indicated above, cannot be invoked.