NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.

The petitioner, herein, is seeking quashing of FIR No.22 dated 16.02.2000 under Sections 452, 427, 506, 323, 148 and 149 IPC registered at Police Station Sohana, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali and Order dated 27.02.2001 passed by the trial Court and all consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR.

While praying for quashing of the said FIR, the only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the co-accused of the petitioner have since been acquitted by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure P-3) and the evidence against the present petitioner, being identical, the FIR against him should be quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner is a proclaimed offender and, therefore, he cannot come back after ten years and claim parity with the other co- accused.

Heard.

The petitioner was granted bail in the said FIR. He is stated to have got married to an NRI girl during the pendency of the trial. Accordingly, he left India in the year 2001. Thereafter, he was declared a proclaimed offender on 21.02.2001. Meanwhile, the co-accused of the petitioner stood acquitted.

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal vs. State of Punjab passed in Crl. Appeal No.D-638- DB of 2007, decided on 17.03.2011 held as under :-

“ 23. We are conscious of the fact situation that those three accused namely Radha Mandal, Rijiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal had absconded and were declared as proclaimed offenders. They had not faced the trial, but when we find that no case could be made out as against them also with the very same rickety materials, those accused also will have to be relieved of the impending pain of facing the prosecution for murder. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows :-

“ Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

Thus, the petitioner being a proclaimed offender, will not come in the way of quashing the FIR, in case, the evidence against him is the same as that of the other co-accused who stand acquitted.

Accordingly, the said argument of learned counsel for the respondent-State cannot be sustained.

On the other hand, the co-accused were tried by the trial Court. However, the prosecution could not prove its case against them. The case of the petitioner is identical. It is not disputed that the evidence against the petitioner, too, is the same.

In the case of Gurpreet Singh alias Khinder vs. State of Punjab reported as 1995(2) RCR (Crl.) 127, somewhere in similar circumstances, where the petitioner was charged for an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, as well as, Sections 302/34 IPC and the FIR was quashed as the co-accused, who were arrested stood acquitted by the trial Court. It was held that where the evidence is same, continuation of proceedings in the case of the petitioner would result in waste of court's time and unnecessary expenditure on State exchequer. The proceedings in the said case against the petitioner were quashed while relying on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in the case titled as Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others reported as 1988(1) Recent CR 565 by observing in para 4 as under :-

“ The local 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 ex