Medha Patkar vs State Of M.P.

Applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( in short “ the Code') for quashment of F.I.R.

bearing crime No. 402/2001, registered at police station- Kotwali, Barwani, District Barwani for offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 294, 353,

332, 506, 448, 426 of IPC, 1860 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and the order dated passed by Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Barwani in Criminal case No.399/2002, whereby the applicant was declared as absconding and a perpetual warrant of arrest has been

issued against her.

The brief facts of the case are that on 03.03.2001, at about 11.15 am, the present applicant, along with other accused persons entered into NVDA

Office at Barwani and broken the furniture, threatened the officials and prevented them from performing their duties. The Executive Engineer Hemraj

Rathore reported the matter to Police-Station Barwani on the basis of which FIR bearing crime No.402/2001 for offence under Section 147, 148, 294,

353, 332, 506, 448, 426 of I.P.C., 1860 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, was registered against the applicant and other

co-accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed, in which the applicant was shown as absconding.

Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued non-bailable warrant against the applicant which was received unserved with the report that even after

search she was not traced and she is absconding. On 14.02.2003, the Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of serving officer, Sub

Inspector R.I. Ahirwar and after being satisfied with the fact that police had searched for the applicant but could not find her and there seems no

likelihood of the accused being found in the near future, hence perpetual warrant of arrest was issued against her and thereafter, the case was

committed to the Sessions Court, which was registered as Session Trial No.77/2003 against the applicant and other accused persons and transferred

to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani for trial.

Learned senior counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is settled law that before passing an order declaring a person as proclaimed offender

or absconding it is mandatory for the court who record in writing its satisfaction that a person against whom warrants have been issued has absconded

or is concealing himself so that such warrants cannot be executed. However, in the present case no such reasons have been recorded by the court. It

is further submitted that applicant is well known person and has never absconded or concealed herself or evaded the process of law in any manner. It

is also submitted that no purpose will be served by proceeding against the applicant, who is accused in 19 years old case. As 12 other accused persons

were tried and acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani after trial vide judgment dated 20.12.2004. So according to him as the

prosecution failed to prove the guilt of any of the accused persons, no useful purpose will be served by conducting trial against the applicant and it will

be an abuse of process of the court and to secure the ends of justice, further proceedings against the accused/ applicant is to be quashed.

To the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that applicant was absconding since registration of the offence and acquittal of other accused

persons is not a ground for quashing the proceedings as against the applicant, as she has not faced trial and main allegation against the applicant, who

did not appear before the trial court to face the trial in the case. In these circumstances, he prays for rejection of the present petition.

I have heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and the documents produced with the present petition.

From perusal of the case diary, it reflects that on 03.09.2001 at about 11:00 am, the present applicant alongwith 22 persons entered into NVDA

Office at Barwani Devision No.22 and broken the furniture, threatened the officials and prevented them for performing their official duties. The

Executive Engineer Hemraj Rathore made complaint to Police-Station Barwani on the basis of which FIR bearing crime No.402/2001 for commission

of offence under Section 147, 148, 294, 353, 332, 506, 448, 426 of I.P.C., 1860 and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, was

registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Barwani in which the applicant was shown as absconding. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued non-bailable warrant

against the applicant for her appearance, however, the warrants issued against her were received unserved with the report that even after search she

was not traced and she is absconding. On 14.02.2003, the Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of serving officers/ Sub Inspector R.I.

Ahirwar and after being satisfied with the fact that police had searched for the applicant but could not find her and there seems no likelihood of the

accused being found in the near future, hence declared her as absconded and perpetual warrant of arrest was issued against her. Thereafter he

committed the case to the Sessions Court which was registered as Session Trial No.77/2003 and transferred to the Court of First Additional Sessions

Judge, Barwani.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused persons and case was posted for recording the prosecution

evidence. After conclusion of the trial, accused persons who were tried before the Additional Sessions Judge has been acquitted vide judgment dated

20.10.2004 from the charges leveled against them.

After perusal of the judgment dated 20.10.04 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani in Session Trial No.77/03, it appears that the

prosecution failed to establish the charges framed against the accused persons because the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution has not

stated anything against the accused persons who were tried, therefore, they were acquitted by the trial court. However, the copies of the statement of

the witnesses shows that they categorically made allegation against the present applicant regarding her involvement in the commission of offence in

their court statement. In these circumstance, the judgment pronounced by the Additional Sessions Judge with respect to the other co-accused person

will be helpful to the prosecution. The applicant has preferred this petition for quashment of FIR registered against her as well as proceedings of the

trial court which indicates that she was aware about the registration of the FIR and pending of the criminal case against her. But she did not make any

effort to appear before the concerned court to participate in the trial.

(10).In the case of Rajuraj Vs. State of Bihar 2005 (7) Supreme 459 the Apex Court held that acquittal of the some of the accused by itself is not a

reason to bar the trial in the case of other accused who was not tried.

(11).In the case of Moosa vs Sub Inspector Of Police, 2006 (1) K.L.T.552 the full bench of Kerala High Court held that the judgment passed against

the co-accused persons will be admissible only to show as to who were the parties in the earlier proceedings or the factum of the acquittal. Further in

the same decision it has been held that acquittal of some of the accused after trial will not entitle co-accused for acquittal invoking the inherent power.

Further the same decision has been held that unless it was able to come to a conclusion that by virtue of the previous judgment, the entire prosecution

case has been shattered , it cannot be said that acquittal of the some of the accused person will entitle the co-accused get acquittal, without facing

trial.

(12). Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, this court is of the view that it is not a fit case to invoke the power under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR as well as proceedings as against the applicant who was absconding accused in the above case and the applicant is not

entitle to get relief claimed in the petition and same is liable to be dismissed.

(13).Resultantly, present petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.