JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J.: - Petitioners have sought quashing of FIR No. 173 dated 19.06.2011 registered under sections 363, 366, 376 2(g) & 120-B IPC at police station Hathin, District Palwal. 2. Learned counsel submits that co-accused have already been acquitted. In view of division Bench judgment of this court in Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal vs. State of Punjab 2011(2) RCR (Crl) 453, proceedings against the petitioners who never submitted to the process of law be quashed. According to him, evidence produced by prosecution against co-accused was not believed by the trial court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. Complaint was lodged by Isha s/o Kallu alleging that on 17.06.2011 his daughter aged 16 years went to the fields to bring fodder but was kidnapped. She was taken away in a vehicle by Wakil, Sakir, Saikul and Munfed. The slippers and chuni of the prosecutrix were recovered near a well in the fields. Thereafter, all the accused committed rape upon the prosecutrix. During search operation, complainant came to know that accused Wakil was having some connection in nearby village, Nurpur. They were able to find the prosecutrix who narrated the entire incident. Thereafter, a panchayat was convened in the village and FIR was lodged with the police. Prosecutrix was medico legally examined. Her vaginal swabs were taken and sent to FSL. Prosecutrix also made a statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she reiterated her version. Prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. However, trial court came to the conclusion that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond doubt. It, thus acquitted the accused who faced trial. Petitioners, however, absconded. They were declared proclaimed offenders by the court. They have sought quashing on the ground that co-accused have been acquitted. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by subjecting them to trial. 5. I am not convinced with the plea. In my considered view judgment in Sudo Mandal’s case (supra) cannot help the case of the petitioners. The apex court in judgment reported as Yanab Sheikh @ Gagu vs. State of West Bengal 2013(6) SCC 428 held as follows:- “23. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the acquittal of a co-accued per se is not sufficient to result in acquittal of the other accused. The apex court in judgment reported as Yanab Sheikh @ Gagu vs. State of West Bengal 2013(6) SCC 428 held as follows:- “23. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the acquittal of a co-accued per se is not sufficient to result in acquittal of the other accused. The Court has to screen the entire evidence and does not extend the threat of falsity to universal acquittal. The Court must examine the entire prosecution evidence in its correct perspective before it can conclude the effect of acquittal of one accused on the other in the facts and circumstances of a given case.” 6. Similar view was taken by Full Bench of Kerala High court in judgment reported as T. Moosa & etc. vs. Sub-Inspector of Police, Vadakara Police Station, Ernakulam & etc. 2006(3) RCR (Criminal). It was held that judgment of acquittal of co-accused in a criminal trial is not admissible under section 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act to bar the subsequent trial of absconding co-accused and cannot be reckoned as a relevant document while considering the prayer to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such judgment would be admissible only to show who were the parties in the earlier proceedings and the factum of acquittal. It appears that in another case reported as Rajan Rai vs. State of Bihar, 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 885 the apex court held that trial of co-accused tried separately is wholly irrelevant in subsequent trial of accused who were not tried earlier. The judgment of acquittal of co-accused would not be admissible within the meaning of section 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act. In view of settled law, I find no merit in the plea of the petitioners. Prosecutrix clearly named the petitioners in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. Petitioners, however, absconded. They waited for trial of co-accused to be over. Thereafter, they preferred instant petition seeking quashing on the basis of their acquittal. In view of clear enunciation of law by the apex court, no case for quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings is made out. It is evident that petitioners never associated with the investigation thus, investigating agency may have been handicapped in collecting evidence. It was held by apex court in judgment reported as CBI vs. Anil Sharma 1997 SCC (Cr.) 1039 that custodial interrogation is more elicitation oriented. It is evident that petitioners never associated with the investigation thus, investigating agency may have been handicapped in collecting evidence. It was held by apex court in judgment reported as CBI vs. Anil Sharma 1997 SCC (Cr.) 1039 that custodial interrogation is more elicitation oriented. However, petitioners never associated with the investigation. Investigating agency, thus, never got opportunity either to seek their custodial interrogation or record their statements. In case such accused who have scant respect for law are given benefit of their own wrong, it would be travesty of justice. In a case of gang rape these accused succeed in evading arrest and never faced investigation/trial. Having been declared proclaimed offenders, they now seek indulgence of this court in its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR and consequent proceedings. Their plea deserves to be out-rightly rejected as they have shown complete disregard for the process of law. 7. Under the circumstances, present petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————