Gurinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 14396 P&H

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:113447




CRM-M-4122-2018                   #1#                      2023:PHHC:113447

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH.

                                                           CRM-M-4122-2018

                                                 Date of Decision:-29.08.2023
Gurinder Singh.

                                                                    ......Petitioner.
                                        Vs.

State of Punjab & Anr.

                                                                 ......Respondents.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:-   Mr. Avtar Singh Bhatti, Advocate for the Petitioner.

            Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG Punjab.

                                 ***

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)

The prayer in this petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is for

quashing of FIR No.51 dated 30.05.2012 (Annexure P-2) under Sections

392, 411 IPC registered at P.S. Mehtiana, District Hoshiarpur and all

consequential proceedings including the proceedings for declaring the

petitioner a proclaimed offender vide order dated 12.09.2014 keeping in

view the fact that the co-accused of the petitioner were acquitted by the Trial

Court vide judgment dated 24.03.2015.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the instant FIR came to be

registered on the statement of complainant Prem Singh who stated that he

was working at a factory in Hoshiarpur. On 29.05.2012 his son Pardeep

Singh was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur due to injuries suffered

by him. While he along with his wife Jaswinder Kaur were returning home

from the hospital on their motor cycle, then at at about 9.35 pm three

1 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:113447

CRM-M-4122-2018 #2# 2023:PHHC:113447

persons came on a motor cycle from the back side and stopped their

(complainant party's) motor cycle. Two persons got down from the motor

cycle and gave a datar blow on his (complainant's) right hand and the

second person pushed his wife from the motor cycle on which she fell down.

All the persons were in muffled faces. The third person snatched a

polythene bag from the hand of his wife, took a small ladies purse

containing Rs.500/- and also snatched gold ear rings of his wife. A cash

amount plus his I Card, driving licence and ATM Card along with mobile

phone were also snatched. Thereafter the accused fled away from the spot.

During the course of the investigation, while the petitioner was

declared a proclaimed offender, Vijay Kumar @ Bhola and Sham Lal were

arrested and on conclusion of the Trial, they came to be acquitted vide

judgment dated 24.03.2015.

3. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that as the co-accused

of the petitioner had been acquitted, no useful purpose would be served by

allowing the proceedings emanating out of the aforementioned FIR to

continue qua the petitioner and therefore the FIR and all consequential

proceedings including the order vide which the petitioner was declared a

proclaimed offender were liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on the

judgment of this Court in Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal Vs. State of

Punjab 2011(2) RCR (Criminal) 453.

4. The Counsel for the State on the other hands contends that the

co-accused of the petitioner had faced trial and on the conclusion of the

same, they came to be acquitted. The petitioner who was aware of the

proceedings deliberately chose not to associate with the investigation and the

subsequent trial and now cannot take benefit of the acquittal of his co-

2 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:113447

CRM-M-4122-2018 #3# 2023:PHHC:113447

accused as the evidence in his case would be led separately. He also

contends that the petitioner is a habitual offender with 04 cases pending

against him bearing FIR No.104 dated 06.12.2022 under Sections 302, 201,

120-B, 148, 149 IPC registered at P.S. Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur, FIR

No.38 dated 02.05.2012 under Sections 382, 34 IPC registered at P.S.

Mehtiana, District Hoshiarpur, FIR No.51 dated 30.05.2012 (Annexure P-2)

under Sections 392, 411 IPC registered at P.S. Mehtiana, District Hoshiarpur

and FIR No.103 dated 24.09.2011 under Sections 382 and 34 IPC registered

at P.S. City, Hoshiarpur. He therefore contends that no case for quashing of

the FIR and the order vide which the petitioner was declared a proclaimed

offender was made out.

5. I have heard Counsel for the parties.

6. In Sarabjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2021(4) RCR

(Criminal) 87 this Court held as under:-

" 15. 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

3 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:113447

CRM-M-4122-2018 #4# 2023:PHHC:113447

inherent powers of this Court to seek quashing of criminal

proceedings."

7. In Harpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-21911-

2019(O&M) Decided on 15.07.2019 this Court has held as under:-

" Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the

attention of the Court to the judgment of acquittal dated

07.02.2011 (Annexure P-4) to contend that the evidence

adduced by prosecution during trial would be equally

applicable to the case of the petitioner as well. He submits

that since the prosecution miserably failed to establish the

charges against the coaccused, therefore, the FIR qua the

petitioner deserves to be quashed. In support of his

arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

reliance upon the judgments passed by this Court in Sudo

Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal Vs. State of Punjab, 2011 (2)

R.C.R (Criminal) 453; Gurpreet Singh @ Khinder Vs. State

of Punjab, 1995 (2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 127, and another

judgment passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Urmila Devi

Vs. State (N.C.T of Delhi,), 2007 (1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 246.

After hearing the respective counsel for the petitioner,

this Court does not find any merit in both the petitions.

In Sudo Mandal's case, the Hon'ble Division Bench

was examining the judgment of conviction delivered by the

trial Court against the two appellants, who were in appeal.

After considering the evidence, this Court proceeded to hold

that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges and,

4 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:113447

CRM-M-4122-2018 #5# 2023:PHHC:113447

therefore, reversed the conviction and ordered acquittal of

convicts. At the same time, this Court proceeded to quash the

FIR in respect of three proclaimed offenders, who had neither

filed any petition nor made any prayer for quashing of the

FIR, but the Court suo motu exercised the inherent powers

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. without even referring any case

law on the subject. Therefore, with respect, but without

hesitation, it is observed that the judgment in Sudo Mandal's

case, apparently is deviation from other consistent law, on

exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. laid down by

Hon'ble Supreme Court, and, therefore, the same cannot be

treated as a precedent. Similarly, the other two judgments

relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are of no

help. Time and again, this Court as well the Hon'ble Supreme

Court have laid down that the inherent powers under Section

482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised with care and

circumspection considering the facts and circumstances of the

case. It will be useful to refer the decision of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Ch.

Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases

335, the Apex Court has held as under:-

" The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to

5 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:113447

CRM-M-4122-2018 #6# 2023:PHHC:113447

lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned

6 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:113447

CRM-M-4122-2018 #7# 2023:PHHC:113447

Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." Further in S.W. Palanitkar vs. State of Bihar 2001(4)

RCR (Criminal) 572, the proceedings under challenge

pertained to a complaint case brought under Chapter XV of

the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Hon'ble Supreme

Court while dealing with the powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C., made the following observations :-

"27. .......The approach and considerations while exercising power and jurisdiction by a Magistrate at the time of issuing process are to be in terms of Sections 200 to 203 under Chapter XV of Criminal Procedure Code, having due regard to the position

7 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:113447

CRM-M-4122-2018 #8# 2023:PHHC:113447

of law explained in various decisions of this Court, and whereas while exercising power under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code the High Court has to look at the object and purpose for which such power is conferred on it under the said provision. Exercise of inherent power is available to the High Court to give effect to any order under the Criminal Procedure Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This being the position, exercise of power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code should be consistent with the scope and ambit of the same in the light of the decisions aforementioned. In appropriate cases, to prevent judicial process from being an instrument of oppression or harassment in the hands of frustrated or vindictive litigants, exercise of inherent power is not only desirable but necessary also, so that the judicial forum of the Court may not be allowed to be utilised for any oblique motive. When a person approaches the High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to quash the very issue of process, the High court on the facts and circumstances of a case has to exercise the powers with circumspection as stated above to really serve the purpose and object for which they are conferred."

It needs to be noticed here that the petitioner absented

from the trial proceedings and never made any attempt to join

the proceedings and, therefore, the evidence recorded by the

trial Court in respect of the other accused who were facing

trial, could not be read in respect of the petitioner.

Considering the conduct of the petitioner as well as the

8 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:113447

CRM-M-4122-2018 #9# 2023:PHHC:113447

facts and circumstances of this case, this Court does not find

any reason to invoke the inherent powers under Section 482

Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR as well as the order dated

04.02.2009 whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed

offender."

8. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, it is apparent that

the occurrence pertains to the year 2012. The petitioner deliberately

absented himself and while his co-accused who faced trial were acquitted on

24.03.2015, it was only in the year 2017 that he chose to file a petition

before this Court and when the same was withdrawn the instant petition was

filed.

9. In view of the judgments in Sarabjit Singh's case (supra) and

Harpreet Singh's case (supra), I find no merit in the present petition and the

same stands dismissed.

                                                     ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
                                                          JUDGE
August 29, 2023
Vinay
          Whether speaking/reasoned                       Yes/No
          Whether reportable                              Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:113447

9 of 9