The single judge bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Shingara Singh Vs State of Punjab and ors held that a proclaimed offender who failed to associate with the trial proceedings despite knowledge is not entitled to invoke the inherent powers of this Court to seek quashing of criminal proceedings.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner is a resident of England and his power of attorney has filed the present petition. As per the FIR, it was stated that they have legally and fraudulently sold the land to the petitioner. Also, the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the procedures ended in the petitioner's favour and that just one accused person was put on trial before being found not guilty, the proceedings should be annulled. On the other hand, he asserts that the petitioner is not prepared or eager to return and participate in the trial.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state has contended that the petitioner was well aware of the proceedings initiated against him and despite the fact, she chose not to appear before the trial court and thereafter, was declared proclaimed offender. It was also contended that not only was the petitioner aware of the pendency of the FIR, but he had also availed an earlier opportunity to approach this Court and chose to withdraw the said petition. Even now, he had chosen not to come back to the country and face Trial.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court relied upon the judgements titled Sarabjit Singh versus State of Punjab and another, Amit Ahuja Vs. Gian Parkash Bhambri, Kuldeep Singh Jaswal Vs. Jaspal Singh, Mangal Dass Gautam Vs. State of Haryana, T.C.Mathai Vs. The District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram and held that the petitioner voluntarily disengaged himself with the trial proceedings, who left the country without seeking any permission from the trial Court, therefore, this petition filed through the Special power of attorney holder is not maintainable. If such a procedure is introduced, then it would not only encourage the accused persons to seek this kind of permissions to avoid their personal presence the trial Courts or any other Court, as required by law but would also put extra burden upon the Courts and it may further cause delay in conclusion of the criminal proceedings, thereby defeating the aim and object of the penal laws. This Court is cognizant of the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C and in numerous judicial pronouncements, it has been held by various High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the inherent powers are to be used sparingly and with circumspection and cannot be exercised in a routine manner, much less for the convenience of the accused. For the sake of arguments, even if it is assumed that in a given case such a permission needs to be given to the accused, in that eventuality also the conduct of the accused applicant would acquire importance, and this Court is of the opinion that a proclaimed offender who failed to associate with the trial proceedings despite knowledge is not entitled to invoke the inherent powers of this Court to seek quashing of criminal proceedings.
CASE NAME- Shingara Singh Vs State of Punjab and ors
CITATION- CRM-M-21573-2021 (O & M)
CORUM- Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi
DATE- 23.11.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
