Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Fateh Deep Singh, J.
Rajdeep Singh - Appellant
Versus
CBI - Respondent
CRM-M Nos. 42777, 42795, 42797 of 2017
Decided On : 25-01-2018
Section 482 - Quashment of Cases - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 464, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474, 212, 420, 419, 465, 406, 120-B IPC - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - Income Tax Act - Companies Act - The court discussed the quashment of cases under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the serious nature of the offences involving economic and societal aspects. The court emphasized that a settlement between the parties does not absolve criminal liability in cases of financial fraud and economic offences, and the exercise of inherent powers to quash an FIR should be cautious, especially in cases with larger criminal ramifications.
Fact of the Case:
The petitions sought quashment of cases under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. based on settlement agreements between the parties involved in various criminal cases. The court analyzed the nature of the offences, the ongoing investigations by premier agencies, and the serious implications of the violations of PMLA 2002, Companies Act, Income Tax Act, and the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the settlement between the parties did not absolve the petitioners of their criminal liability, especially in cases involving economic and societal interests. It emphasized the need for caution in exercising inherent powers to quash an FIR, considering the gravity of the offences and the ongoing investigations by premier agencies.
Issues: The issues revolved around the quashment of cases based on settlement agreements, the nature of the offences, and the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in cases with larger criminal ramifications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles that a settlement between the offender and the victim does not automatically warrant quashing of an FIR, especially in cases involving serious economic and societal implications. It highlighted the need to evaluate whether the ends of justice justify the exercise of inherent powers and emphasized the caution required in quashing FIRs in cases with larger criminal ramifications.
Final Decision: All three petitions seeking quashment of cases were dismissed by the court, emphasizing the serious nature of the offences, the ongoing investigations by premier agencies, and the societal implications of the violations.
JUDGMENT
Fateh Deep Singh, J. - The above detailed three petitions, all under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'Cr.P.C.') have been preferred seeking quashment of cases bearing different numbers. In CRM-M- 42777-2017, petitioners Rajdeep Singh, Gurdeep Singh, Sukhbir Singh Shergill and Gurbir Kaur Shergill have sought quashment of case bearing FIR No.175 dated 16.09.2013 under Sections 464, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474, 212, 420 and 120-B IPC pertaining to Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh (Annexure P1) subsequently re-registered as Case No. RC 2202016E0008 dated 13.06.2016 Police Station EOU-V/EO-II, New Delhi (Annexure P2); whereas in CRM-M-42795-2017, petitioners Sukhbir Singh Shergill, Gurbir Kaur Shergill and Itinderjit Singh Kaleka have sought quashment of earlier case FIR No. 69 dated 19.04.2012 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC pertaining to Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh (Annexure P1) subsequently re-registered as Case No. RC 2202016E0005 dated 13.06.2016 Police Station EOU- V/EO-II, New Delhi (Annexure P2); and in CRM-M-42797-2017, petitioner Raman Uppal has prayed for quashing of case bearing FIR No.125 dated 10.06.2014 under Sections 406, 420, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC pertaining to Police Station Phase-I, Mohali (Annexure P1) subsequently re-registered as Case No. RC 2202016E0009 dated 13.06.2016 Police Station EOU-V/EO-II, New Delhi (Annexure P2); along with all consequent proceedings including those initiated by the respondent-Departments, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P3) praying further that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) so constituted by this Court be disbanded.
2. Since all these petitions though in respect of different FIRs, almost same set of persons/departments are involved where common question of facts and law are involved and therefore for the sake of brevity necessitates their disposal through this common order.
3. The undisputed factual background stems from filing of CRM-M- No. 1720 of 2013 titled as 'Madan Singh and another v. U.T. Chandigarh and others ' and CRM-M-No. 1526 of 2015 titled as 'Raman Uppal v. State of Punjab and others ' whereby this Court while disposing off these two petitions through orders dated 16.09.2015 had passed the following directions:
"XXXX XXXX XXXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX
Since in the present set of circumstances the charge-sheet has been filed but in view of the contradictory findings the investigations in all these different cases so registered and in such a situation to do justice between parties and to instil the confidence in public it has become necessary to ensure that in the present scenario where in the State of Punjab a ruling party's Legislator has his interest in the present case and further as is evident from the records placed before this Court levelling allegations against a senior functionary of the Chandigarh Police, ADC to Governor for interfering into investigations, this Court is satisfied that a drastic step needs to be undertaken at this juncture as there is every likelihood of obviating course of justice as it is not only to do justice but also to instil confidence in the system of the people at large. The police under the guise of carrying on investigations cannot be allowed to fretter away the evidence and, thus, act as an impediment and thereby obstruct the course of justice. More so, there has been gross dereliction of duties by the police and seeking support from Karan Singh v. State of Haryana 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 205 being a classical case of misconduct in carrying on the investigations by these two agencies against whom the State is bound to initiate disciplinary action which they have failed to do so and rather as the history of previous Investigation Officers who too have failed in their duties there is an urgent need for the authorities to wake up from their deep slumber and to act into the matter in accordance with law. Similar is the proposition laid down in Vi
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
