The court may quash proceedings if the chances of an ultimate conviction are weak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal prosecution to continue.

T. H. B. Chalapathi and j. JJ.

1. This application is filed to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner in the Court of Additional Judge, Designated Court, Amritsar in pursuance of FIR No.128 dated April 12, 1992.

2. The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner-Gurpreet Singh alias Khinder along with his brother Parminder Singh alias Bittu were prosecuted for offence under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions. Case No.45 of 1994 for causing death of one Joginder Singh, Rattan Singh and Balbir Singh alias Bittu. Charges were framed against the petitioner and Parminder Singh and the case was sent to the designated Court which took cognizance of offence in Sessions Case No.45 of 1994. During the pendency of the said Sessions Case, the petitioner was reported to be absconding and he was declared as a proclaimed offender. The trial took place against accused No.1 i. e. , Parminder Singh. The prosecution examined three witnesses in order to prove the guilt of Parminder Singh.

3. On consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Additional Judge of the designated Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the accused Parminder Singh. Thereafter, the petitioner who was declared as a proclaimed offender during the trial of the Sessions Case No.45 of 1995, surrendered before the Court and moved this Court for grant of bail. This Court granted bail to the petitioner on 2.12.1994. The petitioner filed two applications for quashing the proceedings against him. The learned State Counsel argued that the trial has to be conducted against the accused.

4. There is no doubt that the case against Parminder Singh and petitioner is the same. The evidence conducted by the prosecution against both the accused is one and the same. The prosecution has to adduce evidence once again against the petitioner which has already been adduced in Sessions Case No.45 of 1994 in that case against the co-accused Parminder Singh. It is not the case of the prosecution that there is any other material against Gurpreet Singh, petitioner apart from the evidence which has already been placed before the Court during the trial against Parminder Singh. The prosecution failed to prove its case against Parminder Singh and the same evidence is also sought to be adduced of Gurpreet Singh. I am of the opinion that when evidence sought to be adduced is the same, it causes unnecessary waste of time the court and the result would be the same. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another V/s. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others as follows: The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are weak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while talking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage. T As the learned Judge of the Designated Court Amritsar has come to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case against Parminder Singh and that the evidence did not establish the guilt of the accused, the same result must necessarily follow in the case of Gurpreet Singh. In this view of the matter, I do not think it proper to continue proceedings against Gurpreet Singh as no useful purpose will be served. Con