Through this constitutional petition quashment of FIR No. 56/2009, dated 21.1.2009, registered under Section 5/7/78 of the Punjab Prevention of Gambling Act, 1978, at Police Station, City Hafizabad has been sought for.
2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to the filing of this constitutional petition are that on 21.1.2009, at about 6.10. p.m. having received a spy information that the petitioner was selling the gambling "Parchies" in a thoroughfare the raid was conducted but the petitioner on seeing the police ran away throwing eight gambling Parchies and a cash amount of Rs. 410/-. The petitioner was allowed ad interim bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hafizabad on 22.1.2009 and the same was stood confirmed on 28.1.2009 the .petitioner joined the investigation and the challan in the case was submitted on 7.2.2009.
3. Conversely, learned AAG vehemently opposes this constitutional petition on the ground that though the petitioner could not be arrested on the spot, yet it is a matter of fact that he was selling gambling Parchies and on seeing the police he fled away throwing an amount of Rs. 410/-, in cash, and eight gambling Parchies. Further the challan of the case has been submitted the matter is sub-judice before the learned trial Court, it would be better to wait for the judgment of the learned trial Court before quashing the instant FIR.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned AAG and perused the 'available record. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the present petitioner, seeking quashment of the FIR under reference, was selling the gambling Parchies pertaining to a draw holds in India the result of which is shown live on T.V. at the channel named as Sur-Sangeet. And the allegation against the petitioner is that he was selling gambling Parchies. Had he been selling the Parchies in a thoroughfare then the police had failed to know for whom of the dealer he used to worked or the collected money i.e. in respect of the selling gambling Parchies to whom of the dealer/his employer, he used to deliver the same for having his commission's amount or salary being an agent or servant; there is nothing on record nor the learned AAG has been able to satisfy this Court on confrontation by this Court in this regard. Above all, as per allegation the petitioner had sold Parchies amounting to Rs. 410/- meaning thereby he had already dealt with a few purchasers of the Parchies on the day of conducting of raid and that too in a thoroughfare but neither any purchaser of the gambling Parchies could be arrested nor any local witness(s) had been brought forward, especially in the FIR. Prima facie, it is also not possible for an alone man, who deals in the thoroughfares the gambling Parchies to himself arrange for huge amount of cash prize to pay his purchasers in the shape of prize money. Meaning thereby that if the version of the prosecution is correct then there would/must be some instigative/supportive element to back him (petitioner) up or to provide financial or authoritative support to carry on this heinous business but non-production of such an-evidence definitely shatters the prosecution story.
5. As far as the argument of the learned AAG as well as the learned counsel for the complainant.that challan of the case has been submitted, therefore, the matter should now be left for a decision of the learned trial Court. In this regard it has already been settled by the Hon'ble apex Courts that mere submission of challan before a Court of competent jurisdiction does not bar the proceedings to quash an FIR.
6. Therefore, in view of above discussion it is crystal clear that it is not possible for an alone man to gamble especially a Parchi seller, as he requires the purchasers of the Parchies to be sold too.
Furthermore, prosecution story seems doubtful when a man in a throughout deals in such like business there is definitely open or hidden resistance in-different shapes but in this case the police has failed to brought any such evidence to prove its version taken in the alleged FIR. The same is, therefore, stands quashed.