IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-20158-2026 Date of Decision: 17.04.2026 Davinder Singh @ Sunny ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)

1. By way of present petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No. 314 dated 29.12.2015 under Sections 342, 323 & 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Sadar Tanda, District Hoshiarpur.

2. The only ground taken by the learned counsel for petitioner is that having faced trial, the co-accused Surinderjit Singh and Balwinder Kaur have been acquitted by learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 03.01.2023 after appreciation of evidence, while in case of petitioner, the trial is pending, since he was declared proclaimed offender during the trial.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court does not find any merit in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner.

4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajan Rai v. State of Bihar, 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 885; relying upon another Three Judges' Bench judgment in Karan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1037; has observed that acquittal rendered in the trial of other accused persons is wholly irrelevant and every case has to be decided on the evidence adduced therein.

Relevant para from this judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

" In view of the foregoing discussion, we are clearly of the view that the judgment of acquittal rendered in the trial of other four accused persons is wholly irrelevant in the appeal arising out of trial of appellant - Rajan Rai as the said judgment was not admissible under the provisions of Sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act. Every case has to be decided on the evidence adduced therein. Case of the four acquitted accused persons was decided on the basis of evidence led there while case of the present appellant has to be decided only on the basis of evidence adduced during the course of his trial."

5. Similarly, a Full Bench of Kerala High court in T. Moosa & etc. v. Sub-Inspector of Police, Vadakara Police Station, Ernakulam & etc., 2006(3) RCR (Criminal); held that judgment of acquittal of co-accused in a criminal trial is not admissible under Section 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act to bar the subsequent trial of absconding co-accused and cannot be reckoned as a relevant document while considering the prayer to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (528 BNSS) and such judgment would be admissible only to show, who were the parties in the earlier proceedings and the factum of acquittal. Relevant paras from this judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

" 50. From the above discussion, it can thus be seen that a judgment to be relevant within the meaning of Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act so as to bar a trial under Section 403 Cr.P.C. should be a judgment inter parties. So however, it does not mean that the judgment is not admissible if it is admissible under any other provisions of the Evidence Act. Thus, in order to prove as to who were the accused in the previous trial or ought to prove the factum of acquittal in those cases it will still be admissible under Section 30 or 35 of the Evidence Act. At the same time, the judgment rendered in the case of a coaccused and the reasoning of the judgment contained therein or appreciation of the evidence therein are not matters to be taken into account for the purpose of granting any relief to quash the proceedings and thus bar the trial itself. It may however, be a case where the very substratum of the case is lost which may be an exception to this rule. However, as held by the apex court it has to be held that even when a coaccused is acquitted in the very same trial, the other accused can be convicted if there