Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate with Mr. Akhil Dadwal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Mohit Saroha, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab

JUDGMENT :

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

The prayer in the petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of the case FIR No.22 dated 19.01.2012 under Sections 353, 186, 420, 149 IPC and Sections 42 & 45 of Jail Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali Faridkot, District Faridkot (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are that FIR No.25 dated 06.05.2011 under Sections 392, 397, 307, 342, 332, 353, 485, 186 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, P.S. Bahakhana was registered against three persons including the petitioner on 06.05.2011 and they were all confined in the Faridkot Jail.

3. While the petitioner was in custody in the above case an FIR No.22 dated 19.01.2012 under Sections 353, 186, 420, 149 IPC and Sections 42, 45 Jail Act, P.S. City Faridkot, District Faridkot was registered against 07 accused including the petitioner for an alleged incident of 10.01.2012 for being in possession of a mobile phone while in custody. The copy of the FIR is attached as Annexure P-1.

4. The petitioner alongwith his co-accused came to be convicted and sentenced to 07 years imprisonment in the trial emanating out of FIR No. 25 dated 06.05.2011 under Sections 392, 397, 307, 342, 332, 353, 485, 186 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, P.S. Bahakhana vide judgment dated 04.12.2012. Later, the sentence of the petitioner was suspended on 25.11.2013.

5. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had been granted the concession of bail in FIR No.22 dated 19.01.2012 vide order dated 24.08.2012. However, as he did not attend the court proceedings he was declared a proclaimed person on 02.06.2015.

6. 05 co-accused of the petitioner faced trial and were acquitted vide judgment dated 09.11.2017 (Annexure P-2). Sarabjit Singh who had been declared a proclaimed person alongwith the petitioner passed away leaving only the present petitioner as a proclaimed person.

7. The petitioner sought the concession of anticipatory bail and was granted the same vide order dated 02.08.2022.

8. The instant petition has been filed for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings qua the petitioner as the co-accused stands acquitted.

9. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was unaware that he was to appear in the Trial emanating out of FIR No.22 dated 19.01.2012 on account of miscommunication and misunderstanding as the petitioner was also involved in one other case bearing FIR No.227 dated 24.08.2012. Be that as it may, as the co-accused of the petitioner already stood acquitted and the evidence sought to be adduced against the petitioner on a subsequent Trial would not in any manner be different from that adduced in the first trial which evidence has not been found to be sufficient to convict the accused, the subsequent Trial against the petitioner would be an exercise in futility. Therefore, the FIR and all the proceedings arising therefrom were liable to be quashed qua the petitioner as it would save the precious time of the court by interdicting a fresh Trial. Reliance is placed on Vishwas Bhandari Vs. State o f Punjab & Anr. 2021 (2) SCC 605, Sudo Mandal Vs. State of Punjab 2011(2) RCR 453, Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Akhilesh Singh 2005(1) SCC 478, Deepak Oram Vs. State o f Orissa 2023(2)ILR (Cuttack) 544, Anant Mishra (d Amit Mishra (d Surya Prakash Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 2022(4) ILR (Allahabad) 307, Jasvinder Singh Vs. State o f Punjab & Anr. (2013) 1 RCR (Crl) 310, Sri Premanand Sahu Vs. State o f Orissa 2013(8) RCR (Criminal) 35 & Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 3 RCR (Crl) 360.

10. The Counsel for the State on the other hand contends that as the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person, his conduct itself did not entitle him to approach this Court by way of a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC and he ought to face trial in accordance with law like his acquitted coaccused. He however, does not deny the fact tha