IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 03.11.2025 ISHWINDER SINGH ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. Present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed for quashing and setting aside of FIR No.114 dated 24.07.2019, registered under sections 420 and 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Gurdaspur City, District Gurdaspur, qua the petitioner with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Further prayer has also been made for quashing/setting aside of the order dated 04.12.2023 (Annexure P-3), whereby petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person.

2. The present case was registered on the basis of complaint given to the police by Sanjeev Kumar with the allegations that one Amitoj Singh promised to send him abroad on payment of Rs.11 lakhs, out of which he had paid the amounts to him on several occasions. On his asking, a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was also deposited in the account of his friend Ishwinder Singh (petitioner) in Bank of India. Thereafter, he had sent three persons including petitioner to Russia from where they had to cross German border but Latvian police arrested them and they were confined in a Russian Jail and sentenced to imprisonment of 07 months and 08 months respectively and Amitoj Singh thus cheated the complainant. After completion of investigation, final report was presented against all the accused, namely Amitoj Singh, Ishwinder Singh (petitioner) and Yogi Raj. During trial, Ishwinder Singh (petitioner) and Yogi Raj were declared proclaimed persons, vide order dated 04.12.2023, as they absented during the trial. Prosecution led its evidence but complainant did not support the prosecution case and accused Amitoj Singh was acquitted of the charge, vide judgment dated 17.07.2025, in this case.

3. Petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No.114 dated 24.07.2019, registered under sections 420 and 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Gurdaspur City, District Gurdaspur, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the ground that trial was conducted in his absence and main accused namely, Amitoj Singh has been acquitted of the charges, as complainant had not supported the prosecution case at all and evidence against the petitioner is also the same. Rather, there is no allegation in the FIR that petitioner had induced the complainant to deliver him money for sending him abroad and it is accused Amitoj Singh, who had promised to send him abroad on payment of Rs.11 lakhs and on the asking of accused Amitoj Singh, complainant had merely deposited Rs.2 lakhs in his bank account and petitioner had not played any role or asked the complainant to deposit the amount in his bank account.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that since main accused has already been acquitted on similar allegations and same evidence, present petitioner will also face the same fate and no useful purpose will be served by continuing with the proceedings and the present proceedings qua petitioner including FIR, framing of charge and the order dated 04.12.2023, vide which he was declared a proclaimed person be quashed. In support of his contention, learned counsel has cited 2011 (4) RCR (Criminal) 453, Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal Vs. State of Punjab passed by the Division Bench of this Court and judgments dated 23.3.2023, 28.04.2011 and 03.02.2012 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-33794-2017, CRM-M-2934-2011 and CRM-M-15621-2011 titled as Balkar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab and Another and Jasvinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another respectively

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition and argued that petitioner absented during trial and was declared a