Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2470 (ALL)

Avtar Singh @ Taru v. State Of U. P.

2018-12-05

VIKRAM NATH

body2018
ORDER : Vikram Nath, J. 1. By means of this application U/S 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants Avtar Singh @ Taru and Charanjeet Singh Sidhu @ Billu have prayed for quashing of the Charge Sheet No.433 B/13 dated 16.07.2018, arising out of Case Crime No.462 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC, P.S.Bilaspur, District Rampur pending in the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rampur as Case No.4729 of 2018, State vs. Avtar Singh @ Taru and others. 2. Opposite party no.2, Kuldeep Singh lodged a First Information Report on 25.10.2013 at around 5:30 p.m. which was registered as the aforementioned case crime number against six (6) named accused namely Avtar Singh @ Taru, Tajendra Singh Bajwa, Sultan Singh, Manjeet Singh, Billu & Sukhvinder Singh Ladi and two unknown persons for having committed murder of Rajendra Singh brother-in-law of the informant, Kuldeep Singh and Smt. Simarjeet Kaur wife of the deceased who was critically wounded. 3. The investigation, it appears was transferred to the Crime Branch of the Crime Investigation Department (CBCID) by the State Government vide order dated 28.11.2013. The said transfer of invesitgation was challenged by the informant Kuldeep Singh by way of a Writ Petition being Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.24952 of 2013. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 18.12.2013 for the reasons recorded in the said order, directed that the execution of the impugned order dated 28.11.2013 would remain in abeyance and further that the regular local police would be allowed to proceed with the investigation, but the same may not be concluded till further orders of this Court. The said order is reproduced below: “ Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and learned AGA for the State and also perused the materials on record. This petition has been filed by the complainant in a murder case, which was registered as Case Crime No. 462 of 2013 under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, Police Station Bilaspur, District Rampur challenging the transfer to C.B.C.I.D. by the order of the State Government dated 28.11.2013 (Annexure3). This petition has been filed by the complainant in a murder case, which was registered as Case Crime No. 462 of 2013 under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, Police Station Bilaspur, District Rampur challenging the transfer to C.B.C.I.D. by the order of the State Government dated 28.11.2013 (Annexure3). It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this transfer has been effected at the instance of one Baldev Inder Singh, the brother of one of the named accused persons namely, Tejendra Singh in order to prevent the accused persons from being arrested, who are well connected and that the order by the State Government was mala fide transfer as it has been done at the instance of the accused persons in violation to the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C.B.I. vs. Rajesh Gandhi and other AIR 1997 SC 93 . It was further contended that the plea on behalf of the accused for transfer of the investigation from one investigating agency to another normally, should not be accepted unless it was necessarily required in view of the guidelines laid down by the Government itself. Taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, learned AGA is directed to file counter affidavit within four weeks showing grounds/ reasons which necessitated to transfer the investigation from the regular police/ local police to the C.B.C.I.D. List this petition in the week commencing 20th January 2014. Till the next date of listing the execution of the impugned order dated 28.11.2013 shall remain in abeyance. It is further provided that during this period the regular local police may be allowed to proceed with the investigation, however it may not be concluded till further order of this Court. Let a copy of this order be supplied to learned A.G.A. for intimation and its compliance.” 4. Thereafter by order 18th July, 2016 another Division Bench of this Court after considering the various directions issued in the said writ petition required the Director General of Police, U.P. to show cause as to why the named accused persons in the FIR had not been arrested so far. Thereafter by order 18th July, 2016 another Division Bench of this Court after considering the various directions issued in the said writ petition required the Director General of Police, U.P. to show cause as to why the named accused persons in the FIR had not been arrested so far. Contents of the said order dated 18th July, 2016 are reproduced below:- “Heard Sri Rahul Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anurag Khanna, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and the learned A.G.A. for the State. It has been pointed out by Sri Anurag Khanna, Senior Advocate that there appears to be a recall application moved on behalf of the respondent no.4 for recall of the Court's order dated 26.04.2016, which is quoted herein below:- "Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 assured the court that all the accused in this case, who are named in the FIR, will surrender before the court concerned within two weeks and the learned counsel for respondent no. 4 shall file surrender certificates before the court on the next date of listing. List on 19th May, 2016." Sri Anurag Khanna, Senior Advocate states that on 26.04.2016 an order was passed by this Court that an assurance has been given by the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 that all the accused in this case, who are named in the F.I.R. will surrender before the court concerned and he shall file surrender certificates before the court. Sri Khanna states that he had no instructions on behalf of the co-accused persons, who are named in the F.I.R. and the respondent no.4 has no control over them to get them surrendered. Hence, he has moved the recall application for recalling of the order dated 26.4.2016 to which learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently objected and has stated that the application is wholly misconceived and the respondent no.4 is related to the said accused persons, who has got the investigation of the case transferred to another investigating agency. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 that he has no control over them is also false. It appears from the record that the F.I.R. of the present case has been registered as case crime no.462 of 2013, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.C. on 25.10.2013 at P.S. Bilaspur, District Rampur. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 that he has no control over them is also false. It appears from the record that the F.I.R. of the present case has been registered as case crime no.462 of 2013, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 I.P.C. on 25.10.2013 at P.S. Bilaspur, District Rampur. Till date the investigation of the case also appears to be pending and the accused persons have not been arrested. Today, a statement has been made by the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 that he is unable to comply the Court's order dated 26.4.2016. The Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow is directed to show cause as to why the accused persons, who are named in the present F.I.R. for a murder case, which has been registered in the year 2013, have not been arrested nor the investigation has been completed till date. He shall file his personal affidavit regarding the same on the next date of listing. List the matter on 27th July, 2016. A copy of this order be given to the learned A.G.A. for necessary compliance. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the D.G.P., U.P., Lucknow and the S.S.P., Rampur for necessary compliance.” 5. Against the aforesaid order dated 18th July, 2016, interim orders were passed by the Supreme Court on different dates whereby the order dated 18th July, 2016 passed by the High Court was stayed and further proceedings in the writ petition before the High Court was stayed. 6. Three Special Leave Petitions (Criminal) were filed by Avtar Singh @ Taru, Manjeet Singh and Tajendra Singh Bajwa registered as SLP (Crl.) Nos.6020 of 2016, 5702 of 2016 and 6626 of 2016. In all the cases interim orders were passed. All the three interim orders are reproduced below:- (i) SLP (Crl.) No.6020 of 2016, order dated 03.08.2016. “Permission to file the Special Leave Petition is granted. Issue notice, returnable within three weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted to the petitioner to produce it before Respondent No.3. In the meantime, there shall be stay of the impugned order dated 18.7.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.24952 of 2013. “Permission to file the Special Leave Petition is granted. Issue notice, returnable within three weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted to the petitioner to produce it before Respondent No.3. In the meantime, there shall be stay of the impugned order dated 18.7.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.24952 of 2013. Respondent No.3 to file an affidavit within four weeks, as to what is the stage of investigation of F.I.R.No.462/2013 on the file of Police Station, Bilaspur, District Rampur, Uttar Pradesh. Tag with SLP (Crl.) No.5702/2016. List on 22.08.2016.” (ii) SLP (Crl.) No.5702 of 2016, order dated 26.07.2016. “Permission to file the special leave petition is granted. Issue notice returnable on 22.08.2016. As an interim measure, it is directed that there shall be stay of further proceedings in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.24952 of 2013 pending before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad till then.” (iii) SLP (Crl.) No.6626 of 2016, order dated 26.08.2016. “Permission to file the special leave petition is granted. Issue notice. As an interim measure, it is directed that there shall be stay of further proceedings in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.24952 of 2013 pending before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad till then. Tag with SLP (Crl).................CRLMP No.12071 of 2016.” 7. Later on the Supreme Court disposed of all the three SLP's (Crl.) Nos. 6020 of 2016, 5702 of 2016 and 6626 of 2016 vide order dated 8th May, 2017, leaving it open to the parties to raise their grievance before the High Court and that the High Court was required to dispose of the said petition within a period of four months. Further the petitioners were at liberty to apply for impleadment and if so advised to move the appropriate forum for grant of bail. The said order dated 8th May, 2017 of the Supreme Court is reproduced below:- SLP (CRL) No.5702 of 2016. “Prayer for intervention stands allowed. Heard Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ratnakar Dash, learned senior counsel appearing for the State. The present special leave petition, as we understand, calls in question, the direction issued by the High Court to the Director General of Police to show cause why the accused persons who have been named in the FIR that was registered in 2013 were not arrested till July, 2016. Ratnakar Dash, learned senior counsel appearing for the State. The present special leave petition, as we understand, calls in question, the direction issued by the High Court to the Director General of Police to show cause why the accused persons who have been named in the FIR that was registered in 2013 were not arrested till July, 2016. We have been apprised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the meantime, the petitioner has been arrested and enlarged on bail by the High Court. In view of the aforesaid, no grievance of the petitioner who had filed the special leave petition remains to be adjudicated. Accordingly, the special leave petitions stands disposed of. SLP (CRL) Nos.6020 and 6626 of 2016. “Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that the parties shall put forth their grievance before the High Court and the High Court shall dispose of the writ petition in accordance with law within a period of four (sic) months hence. The petitioners are at liberty get themselves impleaded. It will be open to the aggrieved persons, if so advised, to move appropriate forum for grant of bail. The special leave petitions stand disposed of accordingly.” 8. In the meantime, as the arrest were not being made, process under Section 82/83 of the Cr.P.C. were initiated against the applicants and other co-accused. At this stage, the applicant no.1Avtar Singh @ Taru filed Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.19407 of 2017 praying for quashing of the First Information Report in question. In the said writ petition, Division Bench of this Court passed a detailed order and stayed the arrest of the petitioner therein till the next date of listing. The said order dated 13.09.2017 is reproduced below:- “On a mention made by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is likelihood of arrest of the petitioner, the matter has been taken out of turn. The said order dated 13.09.2017 is reproduced below:- “On a mention made by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is likelihood of arrest of the petitioner, the matter has been taken out of turn. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Knat, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by learned A.G.A. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned First Information Report registered as Case Crime No. 462 of 2013, under Section 147/148/149/302/307 I.P.C., Police Station Bilaspur District Rampur so far as it relates to the petitioner and also for direction to the opposite parties not to arrest him in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during pendency of investigation one Baldeo Inder Singh, who happens to be brother of another accused made an application before the State Government for transfer of investigation to CBCID. for fair and impartial investigation. Vide order dated 28.11.2013, State Government transferred the investigation to CBCID. The said order was challenged by the first informant-respondent no. 4 before this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 24952 of 2013. It is submitted that the petitioner and other co-accused named in the first information report were not impleaded as respondents in the said writ petition and vide order dated 18.12.2013, execution of the order dated 28.11.2013 transferring the investigation was stayed. However, this Court further directed the local police not to conclude the investigation till further orders. During the pendency another order dated 18.07.2016 was passed by this Court directing the Director General of Police, Lucknow to show cause as to why accused persons named in the first information report have not been arrested nor investigation has been completed. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed SLP (Cr.) No. 6020 of 2016 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and vide order dated 08.05.2017 Apex Court stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 18.07.2016 by this Court. Ultimately, the said SLP was disposed of by making following observation : "Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that parties shall put forth their grievance before the High Court and the High Court shall dispose of the writ petition in accordance with law within a period of four months hence. Ultimately, the said SLP was disposed of by making following observation : "Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that parties shall put forth their grievance before the High Court and the High Court shall dispose of the writ petition in accordance with law within a period of four months hence. The petitioners are at liberty get themselves impleaded." It will be open to the aggrieved persons, if so advised, to move appropriate forum for grant of bail. The special leave petitions stand disposed of accordingly." Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that writ petition could not be disposed of within the time allowed by the Apex Court and in the meantime investigating agency moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate for issuance of non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. Objection filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and an order under Section 82 Cr. P. C. dated 22.07.2017 was passed declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed absconder. Petitioner approached this Court invoking the powers conferred by section 482 Cr. P. C. and ultimately approached the Apex Court by making Crl. M. P. No. 81717 of 2017 in SLP (Crl.) No. 6020 of 2016. The aforesaid application was disposed of by Apex Court vide order dated 30.08.2017 by making following observation : "In our considered opinion, the petitioner can approach the High Court for redressal of his grievances by filing an application, inasmuch as he is a party before the High Court. If such an application is filed within a week hence, the High Court is requested to deal with it within a week therefrom. If the petitioner is so advised, he may file an independent writ petition challenging the subsequent events/orders before the High Court. Needless to say, the petitioner can agitate his grievances in the said writ petition. With the aforesaid observation and request, the criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed." Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the first information report has been lodged on false and frivolous grounds and the police is unnecessarily trying to arrest the petitioner without there being any investigation after about four years of the lodging of the first information report because of strong political connection of the complainant. It is also submitted that despite no credible evidence coming on record during last four years, there appears to be no reasonable justification to arrest the petitioner. It is also submitted that despite no credible evidence coming on record during last four years, there appears to be no reasonable justification to arrest the petitioner. In the back-drop of the above facts, we are of the considered opinion that the issue requires scrutiny. Learned AGA, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 to 3, may file counter affidavit within six weeks. Issue notice to respondent no. 4, who may also file counter affidavit. Petitioner shall take steps of service of notice on respondent no. 4 by registered post within a week. Office shall issue notice returnable within six weeks. List on the date fixed by the office in the notice along with Writ Petition No. 24952 of 2013 showing the names of the counsel for the parties in both the writ petitions. Considering the facts, till the next date of listing, the arrest of the petitioner in the instant case shall remain stayed. A copy of the order may be provided to learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within 24 hours. 9. It appears that in the meantime, the name of applicant no.2Charanjeet Singh Sidhu @ Billu also surfaced and against him also coercive steps were taken by the Investigating Agency whereupon, he filed Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.20950 of 2017 in which also interim protection was provided vide order dated 05.10.2017, which is reproduced below:- “It is contended that impugned FIR was challenged by another co-accused by filing Writ Petition No. 19407 of 2017, wherein while issuing notices, interim protection of staying the arrest was granted-and the petitioner being identically situated, is entitled to the same benefit. Considering the facts, learned A.G.A., who accepted the notices on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3, may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Issue notice to respondent no. 4, who may also file counter affidavit. Petitioner shall take steps for service of notice on respondent no. 4 by registered post within ten days. Office shall issue notices returnable at an early date. List on the date fixed by the office in the notice along with record of Writ Petition Nos. 24952 of 2013 and 19407 of 2017. Till the next date of listing, the arrest of the petitioner in Case Crime No. 462 of 2013 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 IPC, P.S. Bilaspur, District Rampur shall remain stayed.” 10. List on the date fixed by the office in the notice along with record of Writ Petition Nos. 24952 of 2013 and 19407 of 2017. Till the next date of listing, the arrest of the petitioner in Case Crime No. 462 of 2013 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 IPC, P.S. Bilaspur, District Rampur shall remain stayed.” 10. Thereafter all the three pending writ petitions before this Court i.e.; (i) Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.24952 of 2013 (Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of U.P. and two others). (ii) Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.20950 of 2017 (Charanjeet Singh Sidhu @ Billu Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) (iii) Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.19407 of 2017 (Avtar Singh @ Taru Vs. The State of U.P. and two others) were clubbed together and finally disposed of by order dated 29th March, 2018. 11. The operative portion of the order dated 29.03.2018 reads as follows: "The local police (Bilaspur Police Station) shall continue the investigation against Avtar Singh and Charanjeet Singh. Counsel for the State, submit that the police will conclude the investigation and file charge-sheet against these two accused also, within a period of forty five days from today, provided these two accused appear before the Investigating Officer within a period of ten days from today. Counsel appearing for these two accused, on instructions, submits that the petitioners (accused) shall appear before the police within ten days from today and, if they are arrested, they may be given liberty to file application for bail. His statement is recorded and accepted. It is needless to mention that, if the Investigating Officer arrests these two accused, it would be open to them to make an application for bail. We direct the concerned Court to hear and decide their application for bail expeditiously. The transfer order, impugned in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.24952 of 2013, in view of this consent order, renders ineffective. In other words, the local police (Bilaspur Police Station) shall continue the investigation and take it to its logical end. It is also open to these two accused (Avtar Singh and Charanjeet Singh) to file application for bail after filing of charge-sheet. All interim orders passed in these three writ petitions, in view of this order, render ineffective and are vacated as such. All three petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. 12. It is also open to these two accused (Avtar Singh and Charanjeet Singh) to file application for bail after filing of charge-sheet. All interim orders passed in these three writ petitions, in view of this order, render ineffective and are vacated as such. All three petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. 12. Applicant no.1Avtar Singh @ Taru and another assailed the judgment and order dated 29th March, 2018 before the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Diary No.13445 of 2018. The said SLP was disposed of by order dated 6th July, 2018 with slight modification in the order dated 29th March, 2018 passed by this Court. The said order is reproduced below:- “Permission to file the special leave petition is granted. Heard Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned AAG for the State of Uttar Pradesh. Diary 13445 of 2018 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are only inclined to modify the order of the High Court to the extent that charge-sheet against the petitioners may be filed if there are materials to do so. We have said so, as the High Court has issued a mandate for filing the charge-sheet. With the aforesaid modification in the order of the High Court, the special leave petition is disposed of. Pending interlocutary applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.” 13. It appears that in the meantime, the tables had turned and apparently the informant and the witnesses named in the FIR got affidavits prepared not to support the prosecution case. In paragraph nos.17 and 18, it is stated that the affidavits were sent to the Investigating Officer but he refused to incorporate the same in the investigation. Copies of these affidavits and the refusal by the Investigating Officer have been filed as Annexure nos.12 to 16. The informant in order to support the accused, even approached this Court against the refusal by the Investigating Officer to accept the affidavits by way of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.20139 of 2018. This Court upon perusal of the material passed an order on 27th July, 2018 and after granting time to the State-respondents to file counter affidavit, required the presence of the Investigating Officer on the next date fixed i.e. 05.09.2018. Writ Petition No.20139 of 2018. This Court upon perusal of the material passed an order on 27th July, 2018 and after granting time to the State-respondents to file counter affidavit, required the presence of the Investigating Officer on the next date fixed i.e. 05.09.2018. The said order dated 27.07.2018 is reproduced below:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to amend the prayer during the course of the day. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned AGA has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. He prays for and is allowed three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter. List this matter before appropriate Court on 05.09.2018 on that date Investigating Officer shall appear before this Court along with case diary.” 14. Thereafter the said matter was listed on 05.09.2018 when the Investigating Officer filed an affidavit stating that the charge sheet had already been submitted on 16.07.2018 against the accused persons, before the Court concerned on which cognizance was also taken. On the said statement, the Court disposed of the petition. The said order dated 05.09.2018 is reproduced below:- “Heard Sri S.P.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.R. Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. Learned A.G.A. has filed an affidavit of compliance and states that charge-sheet has already been submitted against the accused person before court concerned and competent court has also taken cognizance of the same. In view of the above, let the matter be consigned to record. The presence of the Investigating Officer of this case, who is present in person, is hereby dispensed with.” 15. It is this charge sheet submitted on 16th July, 2018 against the two applicants which is now under challenge in the present petition. 16. It would be relevant to mention here that in view of the delay caused in submitting the charge-sheet against the two applicants on account of the fact that the applicants were absconding and had involved the Investigating Agency into litigation, details of which have already been mentioned above, the Investigating Officer had submitted the charge-sheet against the other co-accused who had been arrested, investigation concluded and trial had commenced (registered as S.T. No.36 of 2018, State Vs. Sultan Singh and others) and was pending in the Court of IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rampur. 17. Heard Sri A.B.L. Gaur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Malay Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Sharma, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record. 18. Sri Gaur, learned Senior Advocate submitted that applicants have been falsely implicated, the prosecution witnesses were not supporting the prosecution story as the witnesses had given affidavits for not supporting the prosecution case and further that all the witnesses of fact had not supported the prosecution case, they were declared hostile at the instance of the Public Prosecutor while deposing in the other S.T. No.36 of 2013 of co-accused, Sultan Singh. Certified copy of the statements of all those witnesses have been filed as Annexure nos.19, 20, 21 and 22. It is also submitted by Sri Gaur, learned Senior Advocate that the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against the applicants under pressure of the Court as he was summoned by the Court to remain present vide order dated 27th July, 2018. Sri Gaur, learned Senior Advocate has also drawn the attention of the Court to the affidavits filed by the prosecution witnesses in the present investigation and also to the statements of the witnesses in the other trial Sessions Trial. No.36 of 2013, State Vs. Sultan Singh and others. Based on the above submissions, Sri Gaur, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the impugned charge sheet deserves to be quashed as it was a case of no evidence. 19. On the other hand, Sri Sanjay Sharma, learned AGA for the State submitted that the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicants had no merit. The charge sheet cannot be quahsed merely on the basis of affidavits as it is common practise that witnesses keep changing their stand. According to Sri Sharma, no reliance can be placed on the affidavits. He further submitted that it is only statement given on oath which cannot easily be withdrawn or resiled from, that reliance can be placed, for which, at the appropriate time during trial the Court will consider. It is also submitted that the evidence recorded in the other trial of Sultan Singh cannot be relied upon for quashing the charge sheet against the applicants, whose trial is separated. It is also submitted that the evidence recorded in the other trial of Sultan Singh cannot be relied upon for quashing the charge sheet against the applicants, whose trial is separated. It is also submitted that the S.T. No.36 of 2013 State Vs., Sultan Singh and others has till not concluded nor any judgment delivered. It is also submitted that even in cases where witnesses had turned hostile, the Courts have proceeded to record conviction and on this also law is well settled. Lastly, it was submitted that it is wrong to address that the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet under pressure as the charge sheet was submitted on 16th July, 2018 whereas the Investigating Officer was summoned by order dated 27th July, 2018. 20. Having considered the submissions, at this stage, no case for quashing of the charge sheet has been made out. The Investigating Officer had earlier submitted charge sheet against other co-accused against whom trial had commenced. The present applicants were absconders and it was only after intervention of the Court and after process for coercive measures under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. was initiated that the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet. If the Investigating Officer submits the charge sheet on the basis of the statements recorded during investigation, mere filing of affidavits as late as in July, 2018, would not wash away or take away the effect of the statement already recorded in the case diary by the Investigating Officer. The credibility of these affdavits is also doubtful and the stand of the witnesses kept on changing from time to time. Kuldeep Singh, the informant had approached this Court when the investigation was transferred to the CBCID and till then he was supporting the prosecution case. That petition was also supported by an affidavit. Above fact clearly shows the frequent change in the stand of the witnesses. Further the statement given in the other trial S.T. No.36 of 2018 by four witnesses is still to be appreciated and considered by the Trial Court dealing with that sessions trial. The said trial had not concluded, and is still pending. The evidence led in another case may be relied upon in another trial subject to the limitations prescribed under the Evidence Act, 1872 but would not be enough to quash the charge sheet under inherent jurisdiction. The said trial had not concluded, and is still pending. The evidence led in another case may be relied upon in another trial subject to the limitations prescribed under the Evidence Act, 1872 but would not be enough to quash the charge sheet under inherent jurisdiction. The applicants may be entitiled to derive some benefit from the statements of the witnesses given in S.T. No.36 of 2013, State Vs. Sultan Singh and others at an appropriate later in the trial. 21. Accordingly for all the reasons recorded above, this Application fails and is dismissed.