KISHORE SINGH LODHA, J. - (1.) DAL Singh has filed this application under: Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against him and pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh for offence under Section 302, read with Section 114, IPC.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to this application are as under. On March 13, 1970, Surjeet Singh, non -petitioner No. 1, lodged a report before the police giving out the following story. At 12.30 p.m. on that day, Surjeet Singh along with his brother Balveer Singh and Jageer Singh and Jagroop Singh had started from Surjeet Singh's house for village Jandwala Sikhan to see the ailing wife of one Jiwan Singh and when they had reached a point near the house of one Ram Singh, they found Dal Singh, Chhotu Singh, Genda Singh, Hansa Singh and Milkiyat Singh sitting in a pit. As the complainant's party approached, Dal Singh and others stood up and Dal Singh shouted -'the enemies had come, murder them'. Milkiyat Singh then fired from his gun hitting Balbir Singh in the chest and he fell dead; Chhotu Singh fired a shot at Jagroop Singh which hit him in the leg. The assailants then left firing shots in the air from the guns they carried to scare people away. It was further slated that Balbir Singh was also armed with a 12 bore gun. It was further stated that Dalsingh and his companions had formed a 'Gunda -Party' in the village and that on a report made by Balbir Singh the police had recovered illegal arms from the possession of Chhotu Singn, Genda Singh, Hansa Singh and Milkiyat Singh which turned hostile toward Balbir Singh. The Police, after investigation, put up the challan against the accused other than the present petitioner Dal Singh. A private complaint was then filed by Surjeet Singh against Dal Singh for offence under Section 302, IPC. It appears that during investigation, on the FIR filed by Surjeet Singh, Jagir Singh and Jagraop Singh in the first instance suported the story narrated in the FIR and implicated Dal Singh. However, at a later stage, in their supplementary statements, recorded by the police, both of them exonerated Dal Singh and even denied his presence in the pit. It is probably on that account, that no challan was put up against Dal Singh. The trial of the other accused proceeded and ended in their conviction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Srigananagar; Milkiyat Singh and Chhotu Singh were convicted under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34, IPC. Harnam Singh and Genda Singh were convicted under Section 307/34, IPC. On appeal, their convictions were upheld by this Court. However, on special appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, all the four accused were acquitted by the judgment dated August 25, 1980. In the meantime a private complaint filed against Dal Singh as also his brother Milkiyat Singh was sent by the learned Minsif Magistrate for enquiry under Section 202, Cr. PC to the Tehsildar, who after enquiry, reported that no case was made out against them. However, the learned Munsif Magistrate did not agree with the Tehsildar so far as Dal Singh was concerned, although he accepted the report as regards Malkiyat Singh. He, therefore, by his order dated September 14, 1970, issued bailable warrant against petitioner Dal Singh. It appears that the learned Magistrate then committed the accused Dal Singh to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh. The case remained pending there till October 25, 1980 probably awaiting the decision of the police challan against the other four accused. On October 25, 1980, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the petitioner, framed charges for offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 114, IPC against the petitioners. It is against this order that the petitioner has come up before this Court.
(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the circumstances of the case, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for any of the offences charged against him and further proceedings in the case would not only amount to wastage of time and money, but would amount to abuse of the process of the court.;