The criminal justice system requires those against whom accusations appear to be well-founded to face trial, and the absconding accused cannot be given undue benefit.

R.C.Kathuria, J.

1. Petitioners, Jasbir Singh and Kuldip Singh, seek quashing of report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-1) arising out of FIR No. 9 dated 6.1.1983 registered under Sections 333/353/332/148/149 I.P.C. with Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar, mainly on the ground that their co-accused who had faced trial in sessions case No. 15 of 1983 decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, on 16.12.1993 had been acquitted and the petitioners who have been declared as proclaimed offenders in the said case be not forced to undergo trial, the same being a futile exercise because the prosecution had already failed to bring home the guilt to their co- accused.

2. As per prosecution version, on 6.1.1983 ASI Jarnail Singh along with Constable Nirmal Singh was present at Bus Stand Goraya. At that time, Vijay Kumar and Hari Singh met them. Vijay Kumar made a statement before them that on that day at about 3.30 P.M. they were proceeding from Goraya to Rurka Kalan in Bus No. PUP-2502 driven by Hari Singh. When they reached near Canal minor in the area of Boparai, seven persons namely, Gurdeep Singh, Kuldip Singh (petitioner No. 2), Rajinder Singh, Balhar Singh, Gurmit Singh, Jasbir Singh (petitioner No. 1) and Balbir Kumar came on motor-cycles. They dragged Vijay Kumar out of the bus and started beating him as a consequence of which he suffered injuries on hips and arms. In the meanwhile, Hari Singh came down from the bus in order to rescue Vijay Kumar. One of the assailants was armed with a Dang and he gave two dang blows to Hari Singh. Vijay Kumar and Hari Singh were then saved by the passengers travelling in the bus. Accused Gurdeep Singh alias Deepa and another accused belonging to village Chachrari were identified. With regard to the remaining accused, identification mark was given in the report lodged. The motive for the said occurrence given is that on 31.12.1982, Vijay Kumar had an altercation with Deepa accused. Though the matter was compromised but still the accused had chosen to settle scores with Vijay Kumar. During the course of investigation, supplementary statement of Vijay Kumar was recorded who named all the accused persons and attributed injuries on the person of Hari Singh to Gurdip Singh. Vijay Kumar also stated that a sum of Rs. 565.35 carried by him in a bag were also taken away by the accused persons. After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed in Court. As Jasbir Singh and Kuldip Singh could not be arrested they were declared proclaimed offenders while the remaining accused faced trial. During the course of trial, prosecution examined five witnesses, namely, Dr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Brij Bhushan, Dr. Davinder Kumar, Vijay Kumar and Hari Singh to connect the accused with the crime. As the material witnesses Vijay Kumar and Hari Singh had not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to identity of the accused who had faced trial, the statements of accused were not recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they were acquitted of the charge by the Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 16.12.1983.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of above-noted circumstances has contended before me that the petitioners should not be made to face trial in respect of the afore-said offences because of acquittal of their co-accused, noticed above. He drew strength from the observations in judgment reported as Gurpreet Singh alias Khinder v. State of Punjab, 1995(2) RCR(Criminal) 127. In that case, the Court took notice of the fact that the evidence adduced by the prosecution against the accused who had sought quashing of the proceedings pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, in pursuance to FIR No. 128 dated 12.4.1992 in which the petitioners had been declared proclaimed offenders and as the prosecution had failed to prove the case against Parminder Singh who had faced trial and came to the conclusion that the produ