A petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint and summoning order can only be filed by the accused person and not by a third person or through a SPA holder.

ORDER

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. - CRL.M.A. 10986/2021

1. By way of the present application, permission has been sought by petitioner/accused Amrinder Singh @ Raja to file the petition bearing No. CRL.M.C. 1571/2021 seeking quashing of FIR No. 258/2010 and the charge-sheet and all the proceedings arising therefrom including the proceedings initiated against the petitioner u/s82/83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure through his S.P.A. holder Sh. Sukhjinder Singh S/o Mohinder Singh aged about 38 years R/o H. No.-489, Street No. 8 Ghuman Nagar, Sarhandh Road, Patiala Punjab who is the brother of the petitioner/accused. The present application under disposal has been signed by the said SPA of the petitioner/accused. The affidavit in support of this application has also been executed by the said SPA holder.

2. The title of the petition bearing No. CRL.M.C. 1571/2021 reads as follows:

Amrinder Singh @ Raja

Through SPA Holder

Brother Shri Sukhjinder Singh

R/o H. No.-489, Street No.-8

Ghuman Nagar, Sarhandh Road,

Patiala Punjab.

Versus

The State of NCT of Delhi.

3. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. APP for the State and perused the records of this case.

4. It is contended by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner/accused that the petitioner/accused has not been named in the FIR and there is no admissible evidence against the petitioner/accused and the petitioner/accused has only been made an accused on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner/accused that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was a travel agent doing the business of travel agency or was doing any business ancillary to travel agency. He further submitted that the petitioner is a business man and working as a Director of an NRI company, the fact which was thoroughly investigated by the IO in May 2010. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner/accused that the order dated 05.03.2016 declaring the petitioner/accused as absconder is bad in law and has been passed without following the due procedure.

5. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. APP for the State that there are allegations against the petitioner/accused and it cannot be said that the case is of no evidence. It is further submitted by the Ld. APP that this is not the first time that the petitioner has been declared absconder and he further submitted that the petitioner was previously declared PO vide order dated 20.12.2011 and the said proceedings were dropped vide order dated 11.11.13 when an application in this regard was moved by the petitioner/accused for dropping of the proceedings U/s 82 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted by the Ld. APP that despite this, the petitioner did not mend his ways and again failed to appear before the trial Court and he was again declared absconder vide order dated 05.03.2016.

6. It is vehemently argued by the Ld. APP that the present petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable as the same has been filed through S.P.A. holder and the present application and petition are liable to be dismissed.

7. In Amit Ahuja Vs. Gian Parkash Bhambri, 2010(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 586; it has been observed as under:-

"9. The plain reading of the ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, clearly goes to reveal, that it is only the accused person, against whom, a criminal case, has been registered or a criminal complaint, has been filed, can file a petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in the High Court, for quashing the complaint, the summoning order, and the subsequent proceedings, and no third person, can fight a proxy war, on his behalf, under the garb of public interest litigant. The aggrieved party, which is affected by an order, is required to seek redress of its grievance, by questioning the legal validity or correctness of the same. It is another thing, if the aggrieved party, is suffering