Punjab-Haryana High Court
Randhir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 12 September, 2022
CRM-M-6542-2021 (O & M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-6542-2021 (O & M)
Date of decision: 12.09.2022
Randhir Singh ...... Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab and anr. ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. IPS Kohli, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.
*****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
This is the second petition under Section 482 for quashing of
FIR No.45 dated 19.03.2010 under Sections 307, 452, 506, 323, 325, 34 IPC
registered at Police Station City Kapurthala, District Kapurthala, Punjab
against the petitioner and all other proceedings arising therefrom including
final report dated 28.10.2011 (Annexure P-1) and the order dated 28.04.2011
whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender.
When this matter came up for hearing on 11.02.2021, the
following order was passed :-
"Prayer in this 2 nd
petition is for quashing of FIR
No.45 dated 19.03.2010 registered under Sections 307, 452,
506, 323, 325, 34 IPC at Police Station City Kapurthala,
District Kapurthala and all other proceedings arising
therefrom including the final report (Annexure P1) and for
setting-aside the order dated 28.04.2011 (Annexure P3).
The earlier one was dismissed as withdrawn vide
order dated 29.01.2021 passed in CRM-M No.4183 of 2021,
1 of 5
with permission to the petitioner to file fresh petition with
better particulars.
Counsel for the petitioner has now placed on record
the passport entries.
Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per
the judgment dated 01.08.2012 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, the real brother of the petitioner
namely Malkiat Singh, was acquitted, after holding a full
length trial whereas the petitioner, who has travelled abroad,
was declared a proclaimed offender. The operative part of the
said judgment, reads as under:-
"8. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and LD. Defence
counsel and gone through the record carefully.
9. In the present case, FIR was lodged on the statement of
Sukhwinder Singh on the allegations that his neighbourer
Malkiat Singh was running a shuttering business from
whom he has purchased old shuttering material and started
his shuttering business and his neighbourer Malkiat Singh
agreed not to do the same business but later on he started
the same business. He was running his business in a profit
than the business of Malkiat Singh. Due to this reason he has
nursed a grudge against them. On 19.3.2010 he alonwith his
son Randhir Singh @ Dhira and daughter Sonu entered their
house and raised Lalkara to teach them a lesson of competing
them with their business. On saying that he entered the room
but his mother was in the courtyard who tried to stop them.
Dhira gave iron channel blow upon her head and she fell down.
When he came to take his mother Malkiat singh and his
daughter scuffled with him. They raised hue and cry, then they
ran away. When complainant Sukhwinder Singh appeared in
the witness box as PW2 he did not support the prosecution
allegations, rather stated that none of the accused inflicted
any injury upon the person of his mother.
2 of 5
He stated that some unknown persons entered their house and
inflicted injuries. He even denied his statement recorded by
the police. Similarly Pritam Kaur PW3 injured also did not
support the prosecution version and stated that the accused
persons present in the court are not the persons who inflicted
injuries upon her person. She also denied her statement
recorded by the police. Both the witnesses were declared
hostile, at the request of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and
were cross examined at length but nothing has been elicited
from their mouth in favour of the prosecution. So from the
statement of the complainant and eye witnesses, no evidence
has come on the file to connect the accused persons with
the present case. Therefore, I find merits in the contentions
raised by the counsel for the accused.
10. Since there is not an iota of evidence against the accused
regarding commission of offence under Sections
307/323/325/506/452/34 IPC. So this Court has no option
than to acquit the accused. Accordingly, accused Malkiat
Singh is acquitted of the charge framed against him. The bail
bonds and surety bonds of the accused are discharged.
11. File be consigned to the record room with the direction to
be taken up again as and when accused Randhir Singh
surrenders or is arrested and produced by the police."
Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted
that the petitioner, who was found innocent at the initial
stage, had travelled abroad and in the intervening period, he
never returned back. It is also submitted that now, the petitioner
wants to come back to India and he came to know that he has
already been declared a proclaimed offender vide impugned
order dated 16.04.2011. It is further submitted that there is no
formal order for declaring the petitioner as P.O., however,
an intimation was sent on 28.04.2011 vide Annexure P-3.
Counsel for the petitioner has further argued
that since both the prosecution witnesses have resiled from
3 of 5
their statement and thereafter, the brother of the petitioner was
acquitted and even, in the cross-version i.e. State vs
Sukhwinder Singh, the accused vide judgment dated
01.08.2012 were also simultaneously acquitted.
Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted
that the chances of conviction of the petitioner are very bleak
and no purpose will be served if the petitioner is directed to
surrender before the Court and face the trial as the witnesses in
both the version and cross-version were declared hostile and
did not support the prosecution version. It is further submitted
that the petitioner has left India on 10.07.2010 and since then,
he is residing in U.S.A. and has now booked air ticket to come
back to India on 13.02.2021.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab who is present in
the Court through video conferencing accepts notice on
behalf of the respondent - State.
Counsel for the State did not dispute the fact that in
the version and cross-version cases, the brother of the
petitioner and the accused in the cross-version, were declared
hostile by the Additional Sessions Judge vide 02 separate
judgments dated 01.08.2012 (Annexures P-7 and P-9). It is
also not disputed that from the perusal of the passport that the
petitioner has travelled abroad in the year 2010 and since then,
he was residing in U.S.A.
List again on 20.05.2021.
Till the next date of hearing, the arrest of the
petitioner shall remain stayed from the time, he arrives in
India, to enable him to appear before the trial Court/Illaqa
Magistrate/Duty Magistrate to furnish bail/surety bonds.
The trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate is
directed to accept the bail/surety bonds of the petitioner, in
accordance with law.
4 of 5
This will, however, be subject to payment of costs of
Rs.1.00 lac to be deposited with the Punjab & Haryana High
Court Advocates Welfare Funds on or before 08.03.2021.
In the meantime, reply, if any, be filed in the Registry
with copy in advance to counsel opposite".
In furtherance of the aforesaid order the petitioner has appeared
before the Trial Court and deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Punjab
and Haryana High Court Advocates Welfare Funds. He was admitted to
interim bail vide order dated 08.03.2021.
The learned counsel for the State has filed a short reply by way
of affidavit of Surinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub
Division Kapurthala, District Kapurthala dated 05.05.2021. as per which,
the co-accused of the petitioner has been acquitted.
In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to direct the Trial
Court to conclude the trial against the petitioner as well within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Court. Ordered
accordingly.
Disposed of.
September 12, 2022 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
sukhpreet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
