The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, failing which the court may quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of the court and secure the ends of justice.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

1. Prayer in this petition is for quashing the FIR No.15 dated 20.04.2007 registered under Sections 447, 379, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') at Police Station Kotli Surat Malhi, District Batala.

2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after registration of the FIR, 05 of the co-accused of the petitioners namely Anoop Singh (since deceased), Gagandeep Singh, Rachhpal Singh (the present petitioner), Sucha Singh, Karandeep Singh and Harinder Singh @ Buri, had faced the full length trial and the trial Court has acquitted the co-accused of the petitioner by passing the detailed judgment dated 16.12.2013. Counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the operative part of the judgment passed by the trial Court to submit that while acquitting the co-accused, the trial Court has even appreciated the evidence of the prosecution viz-a-viz, the petitioner – Rachhpal Singh, who is arrayed as accused No.3 in the array of the accused in the judgment of the trial Court. The operative part of the judgment passed by the trial Court is reproduced as below:-

“11. First of all it is to be seen whether possession over the property has been proved by complainant or not because for criminal trespass possession is required to be proved. Jamabandi Ex.P1 and PW3/A reveals that it is the Punjab Wakf Board who is owner of land falls in khasra No.94. Neither pattanama nor rents receipts have been brought on file to prove the fact that they are tenant of Punjab Wakf Board. So for want of evidence of possession, prosecution failed to prove offence of criminal trespass. Furthermore, the present case was registered on the basis of statement Ex.PA wherein it has been mentioned that on 20.04.2007 at 2:00 a.m., Anoop Singh accused since deceased was standing near the tractor-trolley of wheat and combine was harvesting the wheat crop. It is further mentioned that Pal Singh, Gagandeep Singh, Sudah Singh, Karandeep Singh, Harinder Singh @ Buri were also present along with 4/5 unidentified persons who were already harvesting the crop. It is further mentioned in the statement that when the accused started to take away wheat crop then trolley get stuck there due to wet land and all accused ran away on seeing them. When the complainant Sudesh Kumari stepped in the witness box, she deposed that on 20.4.07 on coming in the land she saw that combine was running in the fields and the accused persons Anoop Singh, Karan Singh, Rachhpal Singh, Gagandeep Singh, Karandeep Singh, Sucha Singh and some unidentified persons were present and at that time, Anoop Singh was standing near the trolley of wheat and when they started to take away the trolley, the same get stuck in the fields due to wet land. It is nowhere stated by her in her evidence that accused Gagandeep Singh, Harinder Singh @ Buri, Karandeep Singh and Sucha Singh were harvesting the wheat crop. It is also clear from her evidence that accused persons had not taken away the wheat crop with themselves. So, the prosecution story that accused committed theft of wheat crop from the land which was in possession of the complainant has not been proved. It is important to note here that Sudesh Kumari has nowhere mentioned the name of one accused Harinder Singh @ Buri in her first part of evidence although he was also named by the complainant in the latter portion. It also creates a doubt in the version of the complainant regarding identification of the accused. If harinder Singh @ Buri was not present at the spot then how the statement of the complainant can be relied upon that other persons namely Anoop Singh, Karan Singh, Rachhpal Singh, Gagandeep Singh, Karanadeep Singh and Sucha Singh were present at the spot. Furthermore, prosecution has failed to produce the wheat crop which was alleged to be harvested by the accused with the help of combine. The ownership of the tractor-trolley and combine has also not been proved which also do not connect the accu