2016(5) Law Herald (P&H) 4404 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1835

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

Before

The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary

Criminal Misc. No. M-14185of2015

Anil Kumar Gupta

v.

State of Haryana & Anr.

Decided on 29/01/2016

For the Petitioner:                  Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate.

For the Respondent:               Mr. Baljinder Singh Virk, DAG, Haryana.

For the Respondent No.2:      Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for Mr. B.S, Tewatia, Advocate.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482-Kidnapping-Rape-Proclaimed Offender-Quashing of FIR-Plea that main accused has already been acquitted and petitioner is also entitled to be discharged-Petitioner is declared proclaimed offender and has not faced trial–At this stage cannot be said evidence against petitioner is same or not-Held; Petition disposed of with directions that if petitioner surrenders within stipulated period, then he would be released on interim bail- Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.363, S.366- A& 376-Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, S.4.                        (Paras 4 & 5)

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral):- The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by petitioner, namely, Anil Kumar Gupta for quashing of proceedings arising out of FIR No.1012 dated 13.12.2013 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 363, 366-A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (Sections 376-D, 506 of IPC and 4 of POCSO Act added later on) at Police Station City Ballabgarh, District Faridabad as well as order of summoning dated 26.05.2014 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 02.12.2014 (Annexure P-4) whereby the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender.

  1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main accused has been acquitted of the
    charge by the trial Court and co-accused, namely, Chander Pal, Ram Phal, Tara Devi and
    Dev Raj @ Chunmun filed a revision petition before this Court i.e. Criminal Revision No.2252
    of 2014 to challenge the order of summoning passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Said petition
    was allowed and order of summoning was set aside. Accused were discharged vide order
    dated 11.01.2016 by this Court.
  2. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not disputed the acquittal of the main
  3. Admittedly, the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender and has not faced trial. It cannot
    be said at this stage whether the evidence against the petitioner is the same or not. It has
    been argued that the main accused has already been acquitted of the charge by the trial
    Court and the petitioner is also entitled to be discharged and the FIR is liable to be quashed.
    The order vide which the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender has also been
    challenged in the present petition alongwith quashing of the FIR.
  4. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present
    petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the trial Courtwithin a period of two weeks and in case, he surrenders within the stipulated period, the trial Court is directed to release the petitioner on interim bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to its satisfaction.
  1. The trial Court is also directed to make all efforts to conclude the trial preferably within a period of three months thereafter.