Daljit Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 19500 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Daljit Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 6 November, 2024

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144868

CRM-M-12293
      12293-2015 (O&M)                                                  -1-




     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                                  CRM-M-12293-20152015 (O&M)
                                                  Date of decision : 06.11.2024

Daljit Singh and another                                         ...Petitioners

                                         Versus

State of Punjab and another                               ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:-   Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. A. S. Samra, AAG, Punjab.

            Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate
            for respondent No. 2.

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') seeking

quashing of FIR No. 258 dated 20.11.2013 20.11.2013, registered under Sections 307,

115, 120-B B of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station

Division No. 7, Jalandhar, chargesheet/final report under Section 173 of the

Code, the order dated 13.01.2015, whereby the petitioners were ddeclared eclared as

proclaimed offenders as well as all the subsequent proceedings having

emanated ed therefrom.

2. Adumbrated facts as emanating from the record are that the

aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by

respondent No. 2/complainant 2/complainant Karanveer Singh on 20.11.2013 alleging that

on the same day, he along with his partner Maninder Singh was present in his

office situated at Urban Estate, Phase-2, Phase 2, Jalandhar, when at about 03:30 PM,

1 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144868

CRM-M-12293 12293-2015 (O&M) -2-

two youths having muffled faces entered inside his office, whereas two

persons remained outside the gate and stairs of his offic office. The youths, who

had barged into his office, were armed with pistols and when the complainant complain

asked them about the reason for their coming there,, they opened fire with their

pistols upon him with intent to kill him. The complainant, however, managed

to save ave himself by by throwing a chair towards them and the bullets so fired hit

on the side of his cabin after piercing through the chair and then hit the roof.

On raising alarm, alarm, all of them fled away from the spot. The complainant

disclosed that he identified one one of them as Parshotam Kumar, resident of

Bijnor. He also alleged that said Parshotam Kumar was having enmity with

his brother Vikramjit Singh, who was residing in Norway and was going to

get permanent residency. Harminder Harminder Singh, father of the complainant, complainant

recorded his statement under Section 161 of the Code disclosing that he was

proceeding towards the office of his son, when two car cars were noticed while

going from the side of the office. One of those cars cars,, which was Indica make,

was driven by accused Parshotam Parshotam Kumar and three persons were sitting

therein. He also disclosed that in the second car, which was Tata 207 make,

Pawan Kumar @ Pawan and Kulwinder Singh @ Kaka were sitting and he

already knew them. The statements of Vikramjit Singh, who was also present pre

in India at that time, and other material witnesses were also recorded.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, accused Parshotam Kumar

was arrested on 06.12.2013. He suffered statement disclosing that he was

engaged by the present petitioners, who w were residing in Norway, to teach a

lesson to Vikramjit Singh, who was in India at that time and he had been

given a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs by them for that purpose. He further disclosed that

2 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144868

CRM-M-12293 12293-2015 (O&M) -3-

he had joined co-accused co accused Pawan Kumar and Kulwinder Singh and had hired hire

some contract killers through Gurmail Singh and had attempted to kill the

complainant on 20.11.2013. Co-accused Co accused Pawan Kumar, Kulwinder Singh,

Sandeep, Mangal Singh and Harmandeep Singh were also arrested. After

completion of the investigation, challan un under der Section 173 of the Code was

presented against them. As the present petitioners, who were nominated as

accused on the basis of the disclosure statement of accused Parshotam Kumar,

could not be arrested as they were residing abroad, therefore, proceedings proceeding

under Section 82 of the Code were initiated against them and they were

declared as proclaimed offenders, vide impugned order dated 13.01.2015.

Their names were kept in Column No. 2 of the challan report.

4. The petitioners have challenged the order dat dated ed 13.01.2015,

whereby they had been declared as proclaimed offenders on the ground that

they never received any summon or bailable/non bailable/non-bailable bailable warrants qua

registration of the aforesaid FIR against them. The mandatory procedure

under Sections 105 and 82 of the Code had not been followed before declaring

them as proclaimed offenders. Even otherwise, they have surrendered before

the trial Court in compliance with the order dated 09.08.2023, passed by this

Court and have been extended benefit of bail by the trial Court. Therefore, it

has been urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. The petitioners have further sought quashing of the aforesaid FIR

and the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom on the ground that

they were not named in the FIR and were nominated as accused in the case on

the basis of the disclosure statement allegedly suffered by accused Parshotam

Kumar on 06.12.2023. It is submitted that the said disclosure statement could

3 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144868

CRM-M-12293 12293-2015 (O&M) -4-

not be taken into consideration at all against the petitioners as the same was

not admissible in evidence in view of the provisions of Section 27 of the

Evidence Act. It is submitted that apart from this, no other evidence

whatsoever could be collected by the investigating agency against them during

the course of investigation. The allegations that they had hatched a conspiracy

with accused Parshotam Kumar, in pursuance of which, the latter had come to

India and made an attempt to kill the complainant, are the result of a false

story concocted later on only with a view to harass the petitioners. It is

submitted that petitioner No. 1 is father-

father-in-law law of Vikramjit Singh, who is

brother of the complainant, and since the relations between the daughter of

petitioner No. 1 and Vikramjit Singh were sta stained, ined, therefore, the petitioners

had been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that no evidence

whatsoever has come on record to show that any conspiracy was hatched by

the petitioners with co-accused.

co They had not visited India either prior to the

occurrence or at the relevant time. No calls detail records of the petitioners

were collected to prove that they were hand in glove with accused Parshotam

Kumar. It is further argued that the case of the prosecution has already been

falsified and accused accused Parshotam Kumar has already been acquitted of charges

framed against him and even the presence of Parshotam Kumar at the time of

occurrence had not been established.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the

complainant, while while appearing as a witness in the trial which took place against

Parshotam Kumar and other co-accused, co accused, had concocted a new story by saying

that it was Lakhbir Kaur, who is daughter of petitioner No. 1 and wife of

Vikramjit Singh, who had conspired with other accused and had arranged an

4 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144868

CRM-M-12293 12293-2015 (O&M) -5-

attack on him through contract killers. It is submitted that though Lakhbir

Kaur had been ordered to be summoned under Section 319 of the Code as an

additional accused but in a revision petition bearing No. CRR-771-2015,, the

said order has been set aside by this Court. It is submitted that the allegations

in the FIR, even if taken to be correct on the face value, do not make out any

case against the petitioners. They have been tried to be connected with this

case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co co-accused accused and on the

basis of some email, alleged to have been sent by Lakhbir Kaur to Italian

Consulate at Kolkata with reference to Parshotam Kumar, but none of these

circumstance can be taken into consideration to est establish ablish the involvement of

the petitioners in any conspiracy or to make attempt to murder the

complainant It is further argued that the ingredients for commission of complainant.

offence of hatching criminal conspiracy have not been established at all. The

factum of acquittal acquittal of accused Parshotam Kumar is sufficient to show that the

petitioners were also not the perpetrators of the subject crime as alleged

against them. On being put to trial, the prosecution would rely upon the same

set of evidence, which was relied upon upon in the case of accused Parshotam

Kuamr and others and the said evidence would certainly not help the

prosecution in connecting the petitioners with the said offences. It is,

therefore, submitted that the trial of the petitioners would be nothing but an

abuse buse of process of law as there are no chances of their conviction. Hence, it

is urged that the FIR in question deserves to be quashed. To fortify his

arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the authorities horities

cited as S. Arul Raja vs. State State of Tamil Nadu : 2010 (3) RCR (Criminal) 918

5 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144868

CRM-M-12293 12293-2015 (O&M) -6-

and Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal vs. State of Punjab : 2011 (2) RCR

(Criminal)) 453.

7. Respondent No.1-State State and respondent No.2/complainant have

filed their respective replies. It is submitted therein and learned State counsel,

assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has argued that accused

Parshotam Kumar was identified by the complainant himself at the time of

occurrence itself, whereas co-accused accused Pawan Kumar and Kulwinder Singh

were identified by the father of the complainant immediately after the

occurrence, when they were fleeing from the spot. Accused Parshotam

Kumar, in his disclosure statement, had disclosed the factum of involvement involveme

of the present petitioner in subject crime by saying that he had been engaged

by them in Norway to come to India and to teach a lesson to Vikramjit Singh.

During the course of investigation, sufficient material had been collected to

show that petitioner No. 1 had even sent a ticket through email to Parshotam

Kumar for the purpose of arranging his safe departure to Italy through Nepal.

In fact, petitioner No. 1 is the main kingpin of the crime, who along with

petitioner No. 2, who is his cousin brother, hhad ad hatched a conspiracy with

Parshotam Kumar for killing Vikramjit Singh and his family members. The

contract killers hired by Parshotam Kumar had opened a murderous assault

upon the complainant with intention to kill him. Though, accused Parshotam

Kumar had ad been acquitted but appeal against the said order of acquittal is

pending before this Court. Co-accused, Co accused, who had opened fire upon the

complainant, have been held guilty and convicted by the trial Court, thereby

proving the fact that an attempt to murder the complainant had been made.

The petitioners had not even joined investigation so far. They were well aware

6 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144868

CRM-M-12293 12293-2015 (O&M) -7-

about the proceedings initiated against them and that is why they had filed this

petition seeking quashing of order dated 13 13.01.2015 immediately after fter passing

of the same. As such, it cannot be stated that there was any lacuna in the order

dated 13.01.2015. Even otherwise, they have not been able to point out any

infirmity in the proceedings adopted by the trial Court while declaring them as

proclaimed med offenders.

8. It is further argued by learned State counsel that the petitioners

have not joined the investigation so far. They are yet to be tried. The material

which was collected during the course of conducting investigation qua the co-

co

accused, who who have already faced trial, is sufficient to form an opinion about

commission of subject offences by the petitioners. The allegations made in the

FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same disclose a prima facie

case for commission of offence of hatching a conspiracy to eliminate the

victim and his family members. This Court cannot delve deep into the record

while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code. The petitioners

cannot seek quashing of the challan report, which was filed against the co-

co

accused as no challan has been filed against them so far in view of the fact

that they have not joined investigation so far. As such, it is argued that the

petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. IIn n support of the

arguments so advanced, learned State counsel has placed reliance upon the

authority cited as Supriya Jain vs. State of Haryana and another : 2023 (3)

RCR (Criminal) 506.

9. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at considerable

length and the record has been perused carefully.

7 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144868

CRM-M-12293 12293-2015 (O&M) -8-

10. At the outset, it will be beneficial to look into the scope and

ambit of the Court's power under Section 482 of the Code as spelt out in

several judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as

different High Courts. The well settled proposition of law is that in exercise of

inherent powers under this section, ction, the High Court is not expected to analyze

all the facts, fact which are placed before it and to not ordinarily embark upon an

enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not and whether on a

reasonable appreciation of it, the accusation would not be sustained as that is

the function of the trial Court.

Court (See State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Gourishetty

Mahesh and others, others, 2010 Criminal Law Journal 3844 3844).. The inherent powers

under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised only when no other remedy is

available to the litigant. Such powers are very specific and aare re meant to secure

the ends of justice, to prevent abuse of process of Court or to pass such orders

as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code. (See Padal

Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu vs Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy and others

: (2011) 12 SCC S 437). In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC

303, Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the inherent power under

Section 482 of the Code is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it

has to be exercised in accordance with the guidelines engrafted in such power

viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of

any Court.

t. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Monica Kumar and another vs.

State of U.P. and others : (2008) 8 SCC 781 781,, has propounded that the

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, though wide, is to be

exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, on only ly when such exercise is

justified by the test specifically laid down in the section itself and appreciation

8 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144868

CRM-M-12293 12293-2015 (O&M) -9-

of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in

exercise of this power. The inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary

jurisdiction risdiction upon the High Court to act according to the whims and caprice.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has drawn up some guidelines in

some categories of cases by way of illustration to circumscribe the exercise of

inherent power under Section 482 of thee Code to prevent abuse of process of

any Court or to secure the ends of the justice or to give effect to an order of

the Court. A celebrated pronouncement on this point is the case cited as State

of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal : 1992 SUPP (1) SCC 335 335, wherein several

guidelines have been laid down. Some of them, which are relevant for the

purpose of disposal of the present petition, are reproduced as under:

(i).. 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.

(ii).. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose close 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) (2) of the Code.

(iii).. 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.

(iv).. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non non-cognizable cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer

9 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144868

CRM-M-12293 12293-2015 (O&M) -10-

without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) (2) of the Code.

(v).. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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.

(vi).. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/o and/orr where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

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

12. It is also well settled that if a petition under Section 482 of the

Code has been filed at the stage of investigation, then it is only required to be

considered whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not. However, when

the statements of the witnesses are recorded, evidence is collected and the

chargesheet is filed after conclusion of investigation/enquiry, the matter stands

on a different footing and the Court is required to consider the

material/evidence collected through investigation. Even at that stage, the High

Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or entering

into the merits of the case as if it is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or

conducting trial. In order to examine as to whether the factual contents of

10 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144868

CRM-M-12293 12293-2015 (O&M) -11-

the FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like

investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an appellate court. The

said question is required to be examined keeping in view the contents of the

FIR and prima prima facie material, if any, requiring any proof. At this stage, the

High Court cannot appreciate the evidence as to whether it can draw its own

inference from the contents of the FIR and the material relied on it. The

appreciation of evidence is not permiss permissible ible at the stage of quashing of

proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Of the Code Code. Reference

in this regard can also be made to the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Kaptan Singh vs. State of U.P. and others others,, 2021 SCC Online SC

580 and Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtr Maharashtra : (2020) 3

SCC (Criminal) 672, 672 wherein it has been observed that exercise of powers

under Section 482 Of the Code to quash the proceedings is an exception and

not a rule. Inherent jurisdiction under under Section 482 Of the Code though wide is

to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such

exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself.

13. On considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the

parties in the wake of the above discussed position of law, in the considered

opinion of this Court, the foremost issue which requires determination is as to

whether the FIR in question question is liable to be quashed? On a perusal of the

material placed on record, undoubtedly it is revealed that the present

petitioners had not been named in the FIR and it was only co co-accused accused

Parshotam Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Kulwinder Singh @ Kaka, who were

named therein. The case as set up against the petitioners is that they had

entered into a criminal conspiracy with co co-accused accused Parshotam Kumar, had

11 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144868

CRM-M-12293 12293-2015 (O&M) -12-

given him a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs and had instructed him to go to India as he

was residing abroad at that time to teach a lesson to the family of the

complainant and in pursuance of the conspiracy, co co-accused accused Parshotam

Kumar had come to India, had engaged co co-accused accused and some other contract

killers and then had made an attempt to kill the complainant. So far as the fact

that the complainant faced murderous assault is concerned, the same is not in

dispute. Some of the co-accused co accused have been held guilty after facing trial in the

same FIR. As per the allegations, Parshotam Kumar had suffered disclosure

statement with regard to hatching criminal conspiracy with him by the present

petitioners.

ers. It is also alleged that after the occurrence, petitioner No. 1 had

sent air tickets to him for the purpose of his safe departure from India.

Co-accused accused Parshotam Kumar has been acquitted of charges framed against

him by giving benefit of doubt as already discussed above. The question is as

to whether his acquittal can be considered to be a ground for quashing the FIR

as against the present petitioners. In the considered opinion of this Court, the

answer to this question should be in the negative, in view of the fact that the

petitioners have not joined investigation in this case so far. This Court, while

exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code, is not expected to examine

the facts, evidence and other material available on record to determine as to

whether there is sufficient material, on the basis of which, the case would end

into conviction or acquittal.

14. This Court is primarily concerned with the allegations taken as a

whole to conclude whether the same constitute an offenc offence or not? Neither this

Court is expected to unduly interfere nor meticulous examination of the

evidence is needed at this stage. It is also not the appropriate stage to delve

12 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144868

CRM-M-12293 12293-2015 (O&M) -13-

deep into the records. The instant one can also be not stated to be a case,

where on considering the allegations as levelled against the petitioners and

reflecting from the material on record, it can be stated that no prima facie case

is made out against them. The petitioners are alleged to have hatched a

conspiracy to commit an offence offence to eliminate the victim and his family

members. This offence, by itself, is distinct from the offence to do the acts,

which were to be done in pursuance of the conspiracy. They might not have

been present at the spot of occurrence at the relevant time an andd they might not

have actually participated in the same but so far as the allegations of hatching

a conspiracy are concerned, the same are required to be examined, keeping in

view the allegations in the FIR and the material collected by the investigating

agency.

gency. At this stage, this Court cannot appreciate the evidence to draw any

inference. The factum of acquittal of co-accused co accused Parshotam Kumar as well as

the fact that the order passed by the trial Court summoning Lakhbir Kaur,

daughter of petitioner No. 1, as additional accused under Section 319 of the

Code, had been set aside by this Court in the aforesaid revision petition, are

not such grounds, which can be taken into consideration by this Court while

exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code. For tthe he reasons aforesaid, it

is, accordingly, held that no reasonable ground for quashing of FIR has been

made out.. As such, the relief claimed by the petitioners to that effect is

rejected.

15. So far as the prayer made by the petitioners for quashing of the

challan report, filed under Section 173(2) of the Code, is concerned, it may be

mentioned that this challan had been presented only against co co-accused accused

Parshotam Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Kulwinder Singh, Mangal, Harmandeep

13 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144868

CRM-M-12293 12293-2015 (O&M) -14-

Singh and Sandeep Singh and not against the petitioners. These accused

persons have not only faced trial but except Parshotam Kumar, all of them

have been convicted by the trial Court, vide judgment of conviction and order

on quantum tum of sentence, both dated 23.11.2016 23.11.2016.. Even otherwise, since no

challan had been filed against the petitioners, therefore, they have no locus

standi to seek quashing of the same. As such, the prayer made by them to this

effect is also rejected.

16. So far as the order dated 13 13.01.2015, .2015, whereby the petitioners

were declared as proclaimed offenders, is concerned, it is not in dispute that

when the warrants were issued against them and when proceedings under

Section 82 of the Code were initiated against them as well as on the date when

they were declared as proclaimed offenders, they were residing in Norway and

were not present in India. There is nothing on record to show that the

procedure as prescribed under Section 105 of the Code was followed before

passing ng the impugned order, therefore, the proceedings adopted by the trial

Court for declaring the petitioners as proclaimed offenders cannot be stated to

be sustainable in the eyes of law. Even otherwise, vide order dated

09.08.2023, a direction was given by this Court that if the petitioners appeared

before the trial Court on or before 22.09.2023 and applied for grant of bail,

their petition would be decided by the trial Court on the same date. The record

shows that in compliance with the aforesaid order, the petitioners had moved

an application for grant of bail, which was allowed, vide order dated

20.09.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. In

view of this fact, the impugned order, declaring the petitioners as proclaimed

14 of 15

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144868

CRM-M-12293 12293-2015 (O&M) -15-

offenders,, has become infructuous. Therefore, the prayer made by the

petitioners to this effect also becomes infructuous.

17. In view of the discussion as made above, the prese present nt petition is

hereby dismissed to the extent to which the prayer made by the petitione petitioners rs for

quashing of aforesaid FIR No. 258 dated 20.11.2013 and challan report filed

therein is concerned. As already discussed, since the petitioners havee been

extended benefit of bail but have not joined the investigation proceedings so

far, therefore, they the are directed to join the same by appearing before the

Investigating Officer/SHO of the Police Station concerned within a period of

45 days from today, failing which, the benefit of bail granted to them shall

automatically stand cancelled.

18. Let a copy y of this order be sent to SHO of the Police Station

concerned as well as to the trial Court for intimation and necessary

action/compliance.

06.11.2024                                                 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari                                                  JUDGE




          Whether speaking/reasoned                        Yes

          Whether reportable                               Yes




                                      15 of 15