Jaswant Singh, J.@mdashPetitioner-Narinder Singh Brar, an NRI, has filed this petition u/s 482 Cr.PC seeking quashing of the FIR No0.19 dated 14.1.2008 under Sections 336 IPC, 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, registered at PS Baghapurana and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of respondent No. 2 - Jaspal John Atwal, who at the relevant time was posted as SI, PS Badhni Kalan.
3. Briefly allegations against the petitioner are that on 14.1.2008, complainant-respondent No. 2 alongwith other police officials, in connection with VVIP duty had laid a naka on canal bridge Moga to Muktsar GT Road. At that time the petitioner alongwith Jaspal Singh and Jaswinder Singh came in a Safari car bearing registration No. PBC 66 from eastern side of Village Jeut Wala towards the main bridge. The said vehicle was being driven by petitioner. It is alleged that petitioner fired two gun shots in the air whereafter he was overpowered and the FIR in question came to be recorded.
4. The quashing of the FIR has been sought on the ground that petitioner, an NRI has been falsely implicated in the present case by respondent No. 2, due to which he has not been able to return to his place of residence-Canada and now petitioner fears losing his permanent resident status. It was alleged that the charges against the petitioner were framed on 18.2.2008 and till date neither the prosecution witnesses have been served nor examined despite the fact that all the prosecution witnesses happen to be police officials.
5. In view of the averments made in the petition, vide orders dated 27.7.2010 and 18.8.2010, SSP Moga was directed to file an affidavit explaining the reasons for non-examination of the prosecution witnesses-police officials.
6. In terms of the order dated 18.8.2010, Snehdeep Sharma, PPS, SSP Moga has come present and has filed his affidavit. In the said affidavit it has been stated that a departmental enquiry has been initiated against the erring police officials who failed to effect service on the prosecution witnesses. It is further stated that now the case is fixed for 19.11.2010 for recording of prosecution evidence. Mr. Sharma, in the said affidavit has given an undertaking that an application for preponement shall be made and all prosecution witnesses will be produced in the Court on the next date of hearing.
7. In view of the aforesaid affidavit, in my opinion, the grievance of the petitioner that trial is being delayed due to non-examination of prosecution witnesses , no long survives.
8. As regard the alleged false implication of the petitioner in the present case at the hands of respondent No. 2, the same cannot be gone into by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.PC, and can be ascertained only on the basis of evidence produced against him during trial.
9. Considering the fact that after framing of charges on 18.2.2008, no effective proceedings took place during a period of more than two years due to non-service of prosecution witnesses, the present petition, keeping in view the undertaking given by SSP Moga, is disposed of with a direction to learned trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from today.
10. Disposed of accordingly.
