Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balvir Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 18 November, 2024
DHARAM VIR
2024.11.27 15:14
120/2
2024 PHHO TSS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-44907-2024 in/and
CRM-M-50516-2024
Date of Decision : 18.11.2024
BALVIR SINGH AND ANOTHER --W_Uann., Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
eee Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Ms. Gagan Deep Grewal, Advocate,
for the applicants/petitioners.
Mr.Pardeep Bajaj, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Raghav Soni, Advocate,
for the complainant
KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral)
1. The application is allowed as prayed for, subject to all just
exceptions, and the copies of the orders dated 12.07.2018 and 11.01.2022
are taken on record as Annexures P-8 and P-9.
2. Through the instant petition preferred under Section 528 of
the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner seeks quashing of case FIR no.86, dated
07.09.2012, registered under Sections 174-A of the IPC, at Police Station
Mehna, District Moga, (Annexure P-1), and all other consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
DHARAM VIR
2024.11.27 15:14
3. In asking for the relief (supra), learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the instant FIR has been registered in pursuance
of an order dated 13.09.2011 (Annexure P-3), whereby, the present
petitioners were declared as proclaimed offenders by the learned Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, in a private complaint bearing
no.COMI/447/2013 (Annexure P-2).
4. While drawing attention of this Court towards orders dated
12.07.2018 and 11.01.2022 (Annexures P-8 and P-9 respectively),
learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as petitioner-
Sukhbir Singh is concerned, the order declaring him as a proclaimed
offender vide order dated 13.09.2011 (supra) was quashed, whereas the
petition preferred by petitioner-Balbir Singh, a co-ordinate bench while
drawing order dated 12.07.2018 (supra), specifically held that the
petitioner was not properly served in the complaint case, therefore, the
pendency of the proceeding in the instant FIR is purely abuse of process
of law and he was directed to appear before the learned trial court
concemed within two months thereon.
5. She further brings it to the notice of this Court, that vide
order dated 02.08.2022, the petitioner-Sukhvir Singh, was discharged by
the learned trial court concerned, in the main complaint case (supra), and
and revision preferred thereagainst, was also dismissed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Moga vide judgment dated 01.03.2023,
6. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners
was duly opposed by learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel
CRM-M-50516-2024 (O&M) -3-
for the complainant, however, they admit the factum of the decision
rendered vide Annexures P-8 and P-9 (supra).
7. In view of the above, since the proclamation order dated
13.09.2011 of one of the petitioners, i.e. Sukbir Singh Malhi, has already
been set aside vide order dated 11.01.2022 (Annexure P-9), whereas in
the case of petitioner-Balbir Singh, directing him to appear before the
learned trial court concerned, vide order 12.07.2018 (Annexure P-8), a
co-ordinate bench has specifically observed that the compliance of
Section 82 Cr.P.C. has not been made meticulously, therefore, this Court
can safely conclude that the the instant FIR which was registered purely
in consequence of declaring the present petitioners as proclaimed
offenders, which already found to be not in consistent with Section 82 of
Cr.P.C. are an abuse of process of law.
8. Resultantly, the instant petition is, hereby, allowed, and FIR
no.86, dated 07.09.2012, registered under Sections 174-A of the IPC, at
Police Station Mehna, District Moga, and all the subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom, are, hereby, quashed, qua the present petitioners.
9. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
November 18, 2024 JUDGE
dharamvir
Whether speaking/reasoned. _: Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
