JUDGMENT 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, Indian Penal Code. 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, Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that during investigation, on the FIR filed by Surjeet Singh, Jagir Singh and Jagraop Singh in the first instance supported 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. 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 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, Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. It is against this order that the petitioner has come up before this Court. 4. 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. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that since in the evidence recorded on the complaint, the witnesses have implicated Dal Singh, there was material before him to justify the framing the charges. He has further observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has merely observed that the case against Dal Singh is not free from doubt, but has not stated that it was false. He has further observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has merely observed that the case against Dal Singh is not free from doubt, but has not stated that it was false. However, on a perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it clearly appears that the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the matter regarding Dal Singh and the observations made by it clearly go to show that it was of the opinion that no case was made out against Dal Singh. It observed after taking into consideration the varying statement of Surjeet Singh, Jagroop Singh and Jageer Singh twice before the police and at the trial in the case proceeded on the FIR as under: The prosecution story as stated in the FIR and as narrated in court by the eye-witness PW 3 Surjeet Singh, PW 4 Jagroop Singh and PW 11 Jangir Singh is one integrated account which gives a leading role to Dal Singh in the occurrence. It is true that if part of the story is found doubtful, it would not necessarily falsify the whole account, but in that case the rest of the story told by the alleged eye-witnesses must then be examined carefully before it is relied on. Here, in view of exhibits D-3 and D-4, supplementary statements respectively of Surjit Singh (PW 3) and Jagroop Singh (PW 4) to the police, and the evidence given by PW 8 Girdhari Singh, S.H.O. to which we have referred above the part of the story attributing a role to Dal Singh does seem to be doubtful. It is to be seen therefore, whether the rest of the prosecution story is so convincing that it can be accepted notwithstanding the questionable part of it. It is, thus, apparently clear that their Lordships have already found that the story implicating Dal Singh in the case certainly appears to be doubtful. When these witnesses have been making different statements at different stages regarding the same fact, no reliance can be placed on their evidence and in these circumstances, the evidence led by them on the complaint, cannot be safely relied upon. 6. Their Lordships while considering the matter in appeal, had also referred to the defence version in the case to the effect that the complainant-party attacked first and each side opened fire only once. 6. Their Lordships while considering the matter in appeal, had also referred to the defence version in the case to the effect that the complainant-party attacked first and each side opened fire only once. Balbeer Singh from the complainant's party and Chhotu Singh of the accused and at the end, it was observed: In this state of evidence, specially the medical evidence, it is difficult to hold with any certainty that the occurrence had taken place in the way the prosecution witnesses allege. From the medical evidence, it is difficult to reach a firm conclusion that the defence version is altogether false. In these circumstances, we do not find it safe to maintain the conviction of the appellants. Thus, the whole prosecution story has been found to be wholly doubtful and the defence version has also not been found to be altogether false. In these circumstances, the case against Dal Singh becomes still weaker and there is absolutely no chance of his conviction in the present proceedings. No useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings rather they would result into wastage of time and money and energy. I am therefore, clearly of the opinion that these proceedings deserve to be quashed. 7. I, therefore accept this petition and quash the proceedings against Dal Singh pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 67 of 1978.Petition Allowed. *******