JUDGMENT

Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral)

The prayer in this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of FIR No.200 dated 01.10.2005 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 447 , 427, 506, 148, 149 IPC registered at P.S. Phillaur, District Jalandhar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the order dated 11.04.2012 (Annexure P-2) vide which the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender as 16 of the co-accused of the petitioner already stands acquitted by the Trial Court vide judgement dated 09.04.2014 (Annexure P- 3).

2. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR pertains to the year 2005. The petitioner had filed his first quashing petition which came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 6.3.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 11.04.2012 (Annexure P-2). Subsequently, his co-accused came to be acquitted vide judgement dated 09.04.2014 (Annexure P-3). Therefore, the FIR and the order dated 11.04.2012 vide which the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender ought to be quashed since the petitioner could not come back to face trial as his passport was expiring.

3. The Counsel for the State on the other hand contends that this is the second petition for quashing of FIR filed on behalf of the petitioner, the first one having been dismissed on 06.03.2007. The petitioner has filed the instant petition through a power of attorney holder which was not maintainable other than in exceptional circumstances. Mere acquittal of his co-accused would not entitle him to the relief as prayed for. Even otherwise, despite opportunity being availed during the pendency of the present proceedings the petitioner has chosen not to come back to face proceedings which shows his intention. Therefore, there was no merit in the present petition and the same was liable to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

5. Before proceeding further it would be relevant to examine the judgements in regard to the arguments raised by the parties.

6. In Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. 2021 (4) RCR (Criminal) 87 this Court held as under:-

" 4. According to the petitioner since his co-accused have been acquitted, therefore, continuation of trial qua him would be nothing but wastage of precious time of the Court and on these grounds, the petitioner had filed CRM-M-30524-2020 seeking quashing of the FIR, however, the same was not entertained because the petitioner is proclaimed offender. Faced with this situation, the said petition was withdrawn, therefore, petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashing of the above mentioned impugned orders.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that once the prosecution had set up a common case against the petitioner and his co-accused, the judgement of acquittal rendered by the trial Court would equally benefit him. He submits that as the judgement of acquittal has been further upheld by the appellate Court, the trial qua the petitioner at this stage would be an empty formality as the chances of conviction are bleak. He submits that while declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender, no proper procedure was adopted by the trial Court, therefore, the said order declaring him proclaimed offender is bad in law. He prays that the impugned orders may kindly be quashed.

6. During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned counsel that the petitioner is still residing abroad and the petition has been filed through his mother, namely, Sukhwinder Kaur (Special power of attorney).

7. When confronted with the maintainability of the petition, learned counsel has submitted that since the mother of the