JUDGMENT : S. K. SAHOO, J. 1. Can a Court of law give premium to an absconding accused on his improper conduct and quash the criminal proceeding against him merely on the ground of acquittal of the co-accused persons by the trial Court, is the subject matter of adjudication in this case. Justice is not a bounty which can be given to any one just because he desires it. A person who tries to cheat and thwart justice without justification does not deserve justice. Portals of Court of Justice would not be opened on the knocking of unclean hands with unfair methods. The stream of justice is clear and pure and it cannot be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants and therefore, the seeker’s approach for justice should be with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. 2. The petitioner Hidayat Khan @ Hidayatullah Khan has filed this application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the order of taking cognizance as well as framing of charges under sections 452, 302, 307, 120-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act and the entire criminal proceeding in G.R. Case No. 989(A) of 2002 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. The said case arises out of Laxmisagar P.S. Case No.29 of 1995 which was registered on 30.03.1995. At the outset when a query was made to the learned counsel to the petitioner as to why neither the order taking cognizance nor order of framing charge has been annexed to the CRLMC application when challenge has been made to such orders, the learned counsel fairly submitted that no charge has yet been framed against the petitioner and he has challenged the continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner in the Court below in view of the materials available on record and particularly the materials which have come during trial in respect of the co-accused persons. 3. The case was instituted on the basis of the first information report lodged by one Ramesh Bihari Das before the Inspector in charge of Laxmisagar police station. 3. The case was instituted on the basis of the first information report lodged by one Ramesh Bihari Das before the Inspector in charge of Laxmisagar police station. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 30.03.1995 at about 3.30 p.m. while the deceased Binod Kumar Agrawal was in his office at room no.14 at Bhubaneswar Stock Exchange located at Falcon House, Bhubaneswar, three unknown persons entered into the room of the deceased, bolted the room from inside and one of them fired one shot by means of revolver at the deceased who received injury on his chest and succumbed to death. The informant was also assaulted for which he also received bleeding injuries. The F.I.R. was registered against unknown persons. Though initially final report was submitted by the Inspector in charge of Laxmisagar police station on the ground of no clue but subsequently C.I.D., C.B. with Loknath Behera, Deputy Superintendent of police, C.I.D., C.B., Orissa, Cuttack reopened the investigation of the case with due intimation to the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar and after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet on 22.06.2002 against the petitioner and five others namely Tulsidas Bhayana, Anjani Kumar Singh, Arun Kumar Girdhar, Raju Giri and Bimal Lohar under sections 452, 302, 307, 120-B read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act . The investigation was kept open under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. as there was likelihood of unearthing of further facts and evidence. In spite of issuance of production warrant against the petitioner who was detained in another case at Tatanagar, the case against him was split up. Out of the five other charge sheeted co-accused persons, co-accused Bimal Lohar died and therefore, the case of co-accused persons Raju Giri, Tulsidas Bhayana, Anjani Kumar Singh and Arun Kumar Giridhar was committed to the Court of Session and they faced trial in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in S.T. Case No.2/30 of 2003 for offences punishable under sections 302/34, 307, 120-B and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code and vide judgment and order dated 31.01.2004, all the four accused persons were acquitted of all the charges. 4. Mr. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in S.T. Case No.2/30 of 2003 for offences punishable under sections 302/34, 307, 120-B and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code and vide judgment and order dated 31.01.2004, all the four accused persons were acquitted of all the charges. 4. Mr. Jagannath Patnaik, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in his own inimitable elegant style contended that in view of the available materials in the charge sheet and the materials collected during trial of the four co-accused persons, continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner would be an abuse of process. It is further contended that as per charge sheet, the only material against the petitioner is his extra judicial confession before three witnesses in which he stated to have committed murder of the deceased Binod Agrawal at the instance of the co-accused persons after receipt of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs) as supari money and all those three witnesses to the extra judicial confession have not supported the prosecution case during trial of the co-accused persons for which they were declared hostile. It is further contended that those three witnesses have also stated that they did not know anybody named as Hidayat Khan. It is contended that in view of such materials, the chance of conviction of the petitioner is bleak and no useful purpose would be served in allowing the proceeding to continue against the petitioner and the trial would be sheer wastage of valuable time of the Court and therefore, the inherent power should be exercised to quash the criminal proceeding against the petitioner in the interest of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the cases of Central Bureau of Investigation -Vrs.-Akhilesh Singh reported in A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 268 and Satyaban Pradhan @ Kuna Pradhan -Vrs.-State of Odisha reported in 2016 (1) Orissa Law Reviews 1083. Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that the acquittal of the co-accused persons cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceeding against the petitioner particularly when the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the co-accused persons who faced trial and got acquitted. Mr. Prem Kumar Patnaik, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that the acquittal of the co-accused persons cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceeding against the petitioner particularly when the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the co-accused persons who faced trial and got acquitted. It is further contended that the case is of the year 1995 and charge sheet was submitted in the year 2002 against the petitioner and five other co-accused persons under sections 452, 302, 307, 120-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. Four of the co-accused persons who faced trial in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in S.T. Case No.2/30 of 2003 were acquitted vide judgment and order dated 31.01.2004 and thereafter, on 01.06.2004 this CRLMC application has been filed to quash the criminal proceeding. He further submitted that the petitioner was keeping a watch over the result of the trial of co-accused persons and therefore, in view of the long lapse of time, this Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding in the Court below. 5. Adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the respective parties, it appears as per charge sheet dated 22.06.2002 that during investigation, it came to light that the accused persons namely Tulasidas Bhayan, Arun Giridhar and Anjani Kumar Singh, the former President, Vice President and Treasurer respectively of Bhubaneswar Stock Exchange after hatching out a criminal conspiracy had hired accused persons who are supari killers namely Hidayat Khan (petitioner), Raju Giri and Bimal Lohar from Tatanagar, Jamsedpur for killing deceased Binod Agarwal out of business rivalry relating to trading activities in the stock exchange. The investigation further revealed that on 28.03.1995 night, the petitioner reached Bhubaneswar Stock Exchange as per previous plan and received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from accused Tulasidas Bhayan in presence of accused Arun Giridhar and Anjani Kumar Singh and returned back to Tatanagar. On the same night, the petitioner had distributed the supari money of one lakh each to his close associates Raju Giri and Bimal Lohar of Tatanagar and kept one lakh with him as his share. On the same night, the petitioner had distributed the supari money of one lakh each to his close associates Raju Giri and Bimal Lohar of Tatanagar and kept one lakh with him as his share. Accordingly, on 30.03.1995 at 11.30 a.m. all the three supari killers arrived at Bhubaneswar Stock Exchange, had a detailed survey on topography and at about 3.30 p.m. the petitioner entered inside the office chamber of deceased Binod Agarwal and bolted the door from inside. The petitioner fired one shot at the deceased who received the injury on his chest and succumbed to the injury. The informant Ramesh Bihari Das who was in the other room witnessed the occurrence through wall glass and when he came to the rescue of the deceased, he was brutally assaulted by means of the butt of a revolver by accused Raju Giri, as a result of which he fell down on the ground unconscious with severe bleeding injuries. Accused Bimal Lohar was standing in front of the deceased and was keeping watch towards outside. After commission of crime, the accused persons fled away from the spot. The charge sheet further reveals that the petitioner being arrested by Kolkata Police was brought to Tatanagar on the strength of production warrant in Jugsalai P.S. Case No.75 of 1992 under sections 302, 307, 353 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act and remand report was submitted to the S.D.J.M., Tatanagar against the petitioner and steps were taken with a prayer before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar for issuance of production warrant against the petitioner. The co-accused Bimal Lohar died on 31.12.1996. The charge sheet further reveals that the petitioner and co-accused Raju Giri and Bimal Lohar (dead) made extra judicial confession before Md. Khwaja Mohinuddin, Munir Gaddi and Md. Abass to have committed the murder of deceased Binod Agrawal at the instance of accused persons Tulsidas Bhayana, Anjani Kumar Singh and Arun Girdhar after receipt of Rs.3,00,000/- as supari money. The co-accused persons Raju Giri, Tulsidas Bhayana, Anjani Kumar Singh and Arun Girdhar faced trial in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar were acquitted of all the charges. 6. It is not disputed that in the trial of co-accused persons, P.W.8 Munir Gaddi, P.W.9 Md. Abbas and P.W.19 Md. The co-accused persons Raju Giri, Tulsidas Bhayana, Anjani Kumar Singh and Arun Girdhar faced trial in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar were acquitted of all the charges. 6. It is not disputed that in the trial of co-accused persons, P.W.8 Munir Gaddi, P.W.9 Md. Abbas and P.W.19 Md. Khwaja Mohiruddin who were examined to prove the extra judicial confession of the petitioner implicating himself and accused Raju Giri and another in the murder deposed during trial that they did not know the deceased or any other person namely Hidayat Khan and that they were not examined by the police. It is also not disputed that the learned Trial Court has held that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused Tulsidas, Anjani Singh and Arun had at any time agreed to liquidate the deceased as there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to draw such inference and that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to connect accused Raju Giri in committing murder of the deceased. In case of Central Bureau of Investigation -Vrs.- Akhilesh Singh reported in A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 268, wherein the C.B.I. challenged the order of quashment of charge of the respondent Akhilesh Singh by the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “5.........It is interesting to note that the original accused Dr. Sanjay Singh and Mrs. Amita Kulkarni were implicated as accused, but both of them were discharged by an order passed by the Sessions Judge and that order of discharge was challenged by the State before the High Court unsuccessfully. A Special Leave Petition also was filed before this Court and that too ended in dismissal on 27.1.1994. Therefore, the very basis of the alleged conspiracy by the respondent with Dr. Sanjay Singh lost its substratum. Admittedly, the respondent was not present at Lucknow when the incident happened. Respondent was implicated in the case on the basis of the alleged conspiracy between himself and the original accused Dr. Sanjay Singh. There is no other material placed before the court to prove the complicity of the respondent...... There was no direct evidence to show that the respondent had supplied the weapons and rendered assistance to the assailants in carrying out the common object of killing Syed Modi. Sanjay Singh. There is no other material placed before the court to prove the complicity of the respondent...... There was no direct evidence to show that the respondent had supplied the weapons and rendered assistance to the assailants in carrying out the common object of killing Syed Modi. Had the conspiracy charge been established, at least some of the acts and conduct of the respondent could have been made admissible under the provisions of Section 10 of the Evidence Act. Once the main accused, who is alleged to have hatched the conspiracy and who had the motive to kill the deceased was discharged, and when that matter had attained finality, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in holding that no purpose would be served in further proceeding with the case against the respondent.” In case of Satyaban Pradhan @ Kuna Pradhan - Vrs.-State of Odisha reported in 2016 (1) Orissa Law Reviews 1083, where in a case under sections 341, 307, 294 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the main accused after facing trial was acquitted by the learned Trial Court and the petitioner Satyaban Pradhan @ Kuna Pradhan who was a co- accused in the said case, challenged to quash the criminal proceeding against him in exercise of the jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., a Single Judge of this Court held as follows:- “5. In applying the principle laid down in the aforesaid case, this Court finds that the main accused Madhab Chandra Saboo, who had allegedly assaulted the informant on his face by means of a stone with an intention to commit his murder, has already been acquitted. The allegation against the present petitioner if that he caught hold of the informant and threw him on the ground and caught hold of him. When the prosecution could not prove the main allegation of commission of offence under section 307 of the I.P.C. against the co-accused and he has been acquitted of the charges under Section 232 Cr.P.C., there is hardly any possibility of proving the case under section 307/34 of the I.P.C. against the present petitioner. When the prosecution could not prove the main allegation of commission of offence under section 307 of the I.P.C. against the co-accused and he has been acquitted of the charges under Section 232 Cr.P.C., there is hardly any possibility of proving the case under section 307/34 of the I.P.C. against the present petitioner. So, in this view of the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that it will be appropriate for this Court, for ends of justice and to prevent abuse the process of law to quash the proceeding against the absconding accused i.e. the petitioner in its entirety by exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.” The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that except the extra judicial confession of the petitioner before P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.19, there is no other material against the petitioner is not correct. It is also not correct that since the aforesaid three witnesses during trial of the co-accused persons have stated that they do not know any person Hidyat Khan or the deceased and that they were not examined by the police, the continuance of proceeding against the petitioner would be a futile exercise. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that the informant Ramesh Bihari Das is an eye witness to the occurrence who is also the informant in the case. He was working as the Office Asst. of the deceased Binod Agrawal and in the first information report, he has not only described the physical features and the wearing apparels of the accused persons who committed the crime but also stated that he saw one black colour person fired shot from his revolver at the deceased standing at a distance of three feet from the deceased. He further stated that the deceased sustained injury on his chest and died while sitting on his chair. It is pertinent to note that during such occurrence, the informant was assaulted by one co-accused as a result of which he also sustained bleeding injuries. Therefore, the informant is an injured eye witness and his version regarding the assault on him as well as the deceased is corroborated by the medical evidence. As per charge sheet, Dr. J.C. Acharaya, Medical Officer, Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar examined the informant and submitted the injury report. The post mortem examination of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Therefore, the informant is an injured eye witness and his version regarding the assault on him as well as the deceased is corroborated by the medical evidence. As per charge sheet, Dr. J.C. Acharaya, Medical Officer, Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar examined the informant and submitted the injury report. The post mortem examination of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, Specialist, F.M.T., Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar. The informant was examined as P.W.4 in the trial of the co-accused persons and he vividly described the occurrence and stated that two persons stood before him in his opposite side and one of them entered inside the chamber of deceased Binod Agrawal, brandished a pistol and then he opened fire from his revolver and the bullet pierced the chest of the deceased. He further stated about his own assault and stated that after he became conscious, he went inside the chamber of the deceased and found that the deceased was leaning backward on his chair and blood was coming out from his left chest. The informant not only supported the prosecution case but also identified two of the co-accused persons Tulsidas Bhaina and Anjani Kumar Singh though he failed to identify Raju Giri and Arun Girdhar. It appears as per the charge sheet that it is the petitioner who fired gunshot to the deceased inside his office chamber as a result of which the deceased succumbed to the injury. The investigation was kept open under section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. and though prayer was made by the prosecution for issuance of production warrant against the petitioner who was arrested by Kolkata Police in connection with another case and brought to Tatanagar and accordingly production warrant was issued against the petitioner by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar but High Court of Jharkhand in W.P.(Cr.) No. 215 of 2003 vide order dated 05.12.2003 directed release of the petitioner forthwith from the custody with a direction to the petitioner to surrender in the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in this case if he is so required. Thereafter, the petitioner has not surrendered in the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar for which no test identification parade was conducted. However, the informant being an injured eye witness, his presence at the spot cannot be doubted at this juncture particularly when he has supported the prosecution case while giving his evidence as P.W.4 in the trial of the co-accused persons. Thereafter, the petitioner has not surrendered in the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar for which no test identification parade was conducted. However, the informant being an injured eye witness, his presence at the spot cannot be doubted at this juncture particularly when he has supported the prosecution case while giving his evidence as P.W.4 in the trial of the co-accused persons. The possibility of conducting T.I. parade after the petitioner is taken into custody in connection with this case and the further possibility of the informant identifying the petitioner in the T.I. parade as well as in Court as the assailant of the deceased cannot be ruled out. 7. The factual scenario of the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is different than the present one and therefore, the ratio decided in such cases cannot be applicable in this case. There is no settled principle of law that whenever some accused persons are acquitted after facing trial or discharged by the trial Court, the co-accused should also be discharged or the proceeding in respect of such co-accused should also be quashed. Absconding accused cannot be given premium to frustrate the justice or to misuse the process of law by treating him at par with those accused who have shown respect for legal processes and have appeared and have not evaded their arrest. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that it is a sensational case of murder in the heart of the Capital city Bhubaneswar. It is not known as to why expeditious steps were not taken in bringing the petitioner on remand when he was detained in another murder case at Tatanagar and conducting the test identification parade at an earliest. However, the interest of justice demands that such acts or omissions of the officers of the prosecution should not be taken in favour of the petitioner, for that would amount to giving premium for the wrongs of the prosecution designedly committed to favour the petitioner. However, the interest of justice demands that such acts or omissions of the officers of the prosecution should not be taken in favour of the petitioner, for that would amount to giving premium for the wrongs of the prosecution designedly committed to favour the petitioner. In such cases, the story of the prosecution will have to be examined dehors such omissions and contaminated conduct of the officials otherwise the mischief which was deliberately done would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the family of the deceased who are anxiously waiting for suitable punishment to the killer of the deceased and this would obviously shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice. 8. If an accused against whom main allegations are there remains as an absconder, watches the criminal proceeding in respect of the co-accused persons and after such proceeding ended in acquittal before the learned Trial Court, he comes out of his hiding place either because he felt that it had become insecure or because he believed that his presence would sooner or later be discovered by his pursuers or that in view of the acquittal of the co-accused persons, the prosecution case against him has become weak and the Court accepts his plea on the basis of the evidence adduced in the trial of the co-accused persons then it would be a travesty of justice. The chance of witnesses supporting the prosecution case and implicating the absconding accused in spite of being hostile while deposing in the trial of co-accused persons cannot be ruled out. They may give some explanation as to why in the earlier trial, they did not support the prosecution case and in such contingency, what would be their evidenciary value would be decided by the learned Trial Court. The Court cannot presume a thing which is likely to happen in a future trial and quash the proceeding against the main accused in a case where the offences alleged are very serious in nature. 9. In the present case, at this juncture, it cannot be forecast that no evidence will come against the petitioner in the trial and the continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner would be an abuse of process. 9. In the present case, at this juncture, it cannot be forecast that no evidence will come against the petitioner in the trial and the continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner would be an abuse of process. It is said that to forecast is nothing but to speculate and as such it cannot be a definite matter. Court cannot proceed on probabilities. Therefore, I am of the humble view that quashing of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner who is the main accused in the case and fired gunshot at the deceased resulting his death would not be in the interest of justice. Accordingly, I am not inclined to invoke the inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceeding against the petitioner in G.R. Case No. 989(A) of 2002 pending on the file of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. The observation made while disposing of this CRLMC application relates to the materials collected during course of investigation of the case and also during trial of co-accused persons. The findings recorded herein are for the purposes of adjudication of this CRLMC application only. This may not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The learned Trial Court would be at liberty to decide the matter in the light of evidence which would be adduced by the respective sides de hors any finding recorded in this judgment. In the result, the CRLMC application being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.