The court affirmed that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC should be exercised sparingly, emphasizing that acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically warrant quashing proceedings against an absconding accused.

JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

The prayer in the petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of the case FIR No.71 dated 28.04.2018 under Sections 379-B, 34 IPC and Section 411 IPC (was added later on) registered at Police Station Division No.6, District Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar, Punjab (Annexure P-1), the proclamation order dated 30.10.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate (NRI Cases), Jalandhar (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the aforementioned FIR came to be registered at the instance of Narinder Pal Dhanda son of Paramjit who stated that while he along with his friend Ravi were going towards Attari Bazar then two young men came on a motor cycle from behind snatched his I phone and escaped from the spot. The number of the motor cycle was 4880.

3. After the registration of the FIR during the course of the investigation Sanjay @ Mini was arrested in FIR No.86 of 2018 P.S. Division No.6 wherein he suffered his disclosure statement to the effect that he along with his co-accused Vinay @ Gandhi (petitioner) had snatched the mobile phone of Narinder Pal complainant and both the accused were nominated as accused in the present case.

4. As the petitioner could not be arrested he was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 30.102019 (Annexure P-4). Meanwhile, his co-accused namely Sanju @ Mini faced the Trial and was acquitted vide judgment dated 04.03.2020 (Annexure P-2).

5. The petitioner filed his first petition bearing CRM-M-441-2022 which came to be argued and withdrawn on 09.05.2022 and the said order is reproduced as under:-

" After arguing for sometime, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for permission to withdraw the petition at this stage.

Dismissed as withdrawn at this stage."

6. The instant second petition has now been filed impugning the FIR (Annexure P-1) and the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender (Annexure P-2).

7. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that as the co-accused of the petitioner namely Sanju @ Mini had faced the Trial and was acquitted and no fresh material was to come up against the petitioner in case he was to face trial the holding of the Trial itself would be an exercise in futility and therefore, the FIR was liable to be quashed. As regards the order dated 30.10.2019 vide which the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender he contends that the said order had been passed in violation of Section 82 of Cr.PC and the said order was liable to be quashed.

8. The Counsel for the State on the other contends that during the course of the Trial against the co-accused Sanju @ Mini one of the grounds of acquittal was that no test identification parade had been held and the first time identification of the said accused in court had little evidentiary value. In the instant case however as the petitioner had never joined the investigation, there was every possibility that a test identification parade would be held if he was to join investigation and consequently the evidence available against the petitioner would be different from that available against his co-accused, who had been acquitted. He further contends that there was no violation of Section 82 Cr.PC. The proclamation was issued on 10.09.2019 and the case was adjourned to 26.09.2019. As 30 days had not elapsed the case was adjourned to 30.10.2019 on which date the impugned order had been passed. Therefore, no fault could be found with the said order as well. In addition he contends that the first petition filed by the petitioner was argued at length and withdrawn vide order dated 09.05.22022 (Annexure P-5) and there were no change in circumstances warranting the filing of the instant second petition. Therefore, the same was liable to be dismissed.

9. I have heard counsel for the parties and examined the record.

10. Before proceedings further it would be relevant to examine some of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and various Hig