RANJIT SINGH SARKARIA,J. - (1.) THREE petitioners have filed this petition for quashing of FIR registered against them under Sections 395, 397 IPC and under the Arms Act registered at Police Station Palwal, District Palwal and so also the subsequent proceedings on the ground that their co -accused Abbas has been acquitted. For support, reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Sudo Mandal Vs. State of Punjab, dated 17.3.2011, Annexure P -3. The FIR in this case was registered on a statement made by Hasam Khan. It is alleged that the complainant was employed as a Driver on dumpher No.HR -38N -0760 of one Ashraf son of Suddin. On 16.10.2010, the complainant and Issa son of Suddin were going to U.P by loading a 'Rori' machine. When they reached near Durgapur, one Santro car stopped in front of the dumpher. The complainant stopped the vehicle, when four persons alighted from the car, who had their faces covered. They were carrying country made pistol. The complainant and Issa were made to alight from the vehicle and put behind the vehicle. They four boarded the vehicle and started driving the same. After some distance, the complainant was put into the Santro car and their vehicle was snatched. They kept on roaming at various places and later left the complainant in the forest by tying their hands and foot. The complainant subsequently reached their house after freeing them by giving a phone call, when their relatives reached there. On this basis, they filed a complaint, after knowing the identity of the persons.
(2.) ABBAS was arrested during the investigation on 3.3.2011 and challan was filed against him alongwith the petitioners. The petitioners did not appear and could not be arrested and so were declared proclaimed offenders. The trial against Abbas continued and the Trial Court acquitted Abbas as the complainant has made a statement that they were looted by some unknown persons. The judgement acquitting Abbas is annexed with the petition. Claiming that they were not initially aware of their false implication and they have learnt it now, when the police had raided their houses. They have filed the present petition for quashing of FIR, Annexure P -1. The plea simply is that co -accused Abbas, who is similarly situated and is at par with the petitioners has been acquitted and, therefore, the exercise of putting the petitioners to trial would be nothing but a futile exercise and wastage of precious time of the Trial Court.
(3.) SHOULD a person, who has no respect for law, be permitted to wait on the side line and look for an outcome of a trial and then seek parity having shown disrespect to the Court and law by not submitting himself before the cause of justice? The petitioners were declared proclaimed offender but never chose to appear before the Court, waited for the outcome and now are seeking their acquittal on the basis of parity by moving this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioners are seeking premium over their misconduct in not showing any respect to law. They have remained absent, evaded the trial and their prosecution and now they seek advantage of this illegal act on their part. What would have been the plea of the petitioner, if the outcome of the trial against Abbas would have been converse? Would the petitioners then had come forward to seek their conviction and sentence by filing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground their co -accused similarly situated has been convicted? The prosecution could also not have been permitted to seek conviction of the petitioner on the ground that their co -accused is convicted and so they should be convicted on the ground that evidence would be same. They could neither have thought of making this approach nor it would have been legally justified for this Court to convict them and to sentence them on the basis that their co -accused have been convicted. If the prosecution had made any approach in such eventuality to seek conviction and sentence for the petitioners, then they would have cried hoarse to say that they ought to be put to trial and proved guilty before the prosecution could seek their conviction or pray for sentence being imposed on them. That alone is the legal course available and that would also be the legal course now available for the petitioners to submit themselves before the Trial Court and face the consequence of trial. The petitioners have to face the rigors of a trial where the prosecution ought to be given an opportunity to produce the evidence against them.;