JUDGMENT

Daya Chaudhary, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 for quashing of impugned order dated 06.06.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1) granting pardon to Surjit Singh @ Sita in case FIR No.12 dated 15.02.2016 registered under Sections 302, 201, 365, 364 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Bhaini Mian Khan, District Gurdaspur.

2. As per case of the petitioner, he is facing trial in the above said case/FIR, which was registered on the basis of statement made by complainant-Manjit Kaur stating therein that her son-Ranjit Singh was kidnapped by some unknown persons for some gain. It was also alleged that on 13.02.2016 at about 9.00 pm, her son told her that he was going out for some urgent work and would come back within one hour. The outer gate of the house was not locked. He left the house on his vehicle XUV bearing No. PB-06-AC-6001. At about 10.00 pm, he talked to his nephew Lovepreet Singh from his mobile and told that he was present in Mukerian town and would come back home soon. After some time, both the mobile numbers were found switched off. They searched Ranjit Singh with relatives but he could not be traced out. After lodging of aforesaid FIR, the challan was presented and charges were framed on 20.02.2017 against petitioner-Mandeep Singh @ Manna under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC. When the charge was read over to him, he came to know that no charge was framed against Surjit Singh @ Sita. On inquiry, the petitioner came to know that pardon had been granted to Surjit Singh @ Sita by the JMIC vide order dated 06.06.2016. In pursuance of said order dated 06.06.2016, Surjit Singh @ Sita had suffered statement before the JMIC on 06.06.2016 and pardon was granted by order dated 06.06.2016 passed by the JMIC, which has been challenged by petitioner-Mandeep Singh @ Manna by raising various grounds.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 306 Cr.P.C., 1973 a pardon can be tendered to a person, who is directly or indirectly concerned or has privy to an offence. On perusal of statement suffered by Surjit Singh @ Sita, it appears that it was not disclosed in the statement that he was an accomplice of the petitioner or was privy to the offence in question. Learned senior counsel further submits that nothing has come in the statement made by Surjit Singh @ Sita that he was an accomplice of the petitioner or he was concerned with the offence in any manner. No injury was found on the dead body of deceased-Ranjit Singh. Even the cause of death could not be given by the doctor at the time of post mortem examination. The dead body of the deceased was found from the canal and it was a case of blind murder. A false witness has been set-up by the Investigating officer against the petitioner as a person before whom the petitioner has been shown to have made an extra-judicial confession whereas no such confession was ever made by him before any person. Learned senior counsel also submits that the impugned order is totally nonspeaking and has been passed without any application of mind. At the end, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial of the petitioner is being proceeded on the basis of statement made by Surjit Singh @ Sita on the basis of which, he has been tendered pardon and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. Learned senior counsel has relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Balveer @ Balli and another, 2013 (6) Judgments (R.A.J.) 368 as well as judgment rendered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bench at Indore in Ravindra Nath Jain vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, HQR Indore and another, M.Cr.C. No. 2142/2017 decided on 04.09.2017 in support of his arguments.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner by raising a preliminary objection that the petition