Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 851

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.
Sadhu Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-M-8601-2022
Decided On : 06-07-2022

Advocates:
Mr. S. S. Rangi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Amarjit Kaur Khurana, Dag, Punjab, Mr. Ramanpreet Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with the statutory provisions of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. and the proper procedure for handling juveniles in conflict with the law under the Juvenile Justice Act.

Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of Order - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - 307, 452, 323, 427, 506, 148, 149 - 82 Proclamation for person absconding - Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2000 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. and the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2000. It highlighted the requirement of a period of not less than 30 days from the date of publishing such proclamation under Section 82 and the procedure for handling juveniles in conflict with the law under the Juvenile Justice Act. The court also emphasized the need for separate trials of juveniles and adults and the authority of the Juvenile Justice Board in such cases. The interpretation of these legal provisions influenced the court's decision to set aside the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition seeking quashing of an order in an FIR under various sections of the IPC. The petitioner, who was allegedly involved in the incident, claimed to be falsely implicated due to being less than 15 years of age at the time of the alleged incident. The complainant and witnesses expressed a desire to compound the offence and not proceed further in the case. The petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender, leading to the filing of the present petition.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender was not tenable as it did not comply with the mandatory period of 30 days as per Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. The court also noted that the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence, and the procedure under the Juvenile Justice Act was not followed, rendering the order without jurisdiction. The main dispute had already been resolved amongst the parties, and the FIR and other consequential proceedings had been quashed in a related judgment.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender, the petitioner's juvenility at the time of the offence, and the compliance with the procedural requirements under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. and the Juvenile Justice Act, emphasizing the need for compliance with the statutory provisions and the proper procedure for handling juveniles in conflict with the law. The court also considered the resolution of the main dispute amongst the parties and the quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and set aside the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender, subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 10,000 to be deposited by the petitioner in the Punjab State Legal Service Authority.

JUDGMENT

ORDER

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral). - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") seeking quashing of order dated 18.01.2019 (Annexure P13) in FIR No. 71 dated 19.07.2013 under Section 307, 452, 323, 427, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as"the IPC") registered at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana Rural (Annexure P-1) (offence under Section 325 was added and offence under Section 307 of the IPC was deleted on 27.07.2013 and thereafter vide Zimni dated 20.10.2013 offence under Sections 452, 427, 148 and 149 of the IPC were deleted and offence under Section 34 of the IPC was added) vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender, as well as subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The facts of the instant case are that the FIR in question has been registered at the instance of one Sarabjit Singh son of Piara Singh dated 19.07.2013 wherein he had alleged that he was Polling Agent of one Chamkaur Singh Sarpanch at the time of Panchayat Elections where a fight had occurred with Gurmeet Singh son of Surjan Singh who had intimidated the complainant. On the date of incident, Jagtar Singh Panch who had been elected from Ward No. 5 was thanking the voters from Gurudwara Sahib which agitated Gurmeet Singh and others and they tried to pick a fight which was however settled by the respectable persons of both the sides and the parties were separated. At about 11:00 a.m., the complainant was present in his house, 20-25 persons came on various vehicles carrying weapons and caused injuries. The petitioner was allegedly armed with a kirpan and is alleged to have participated in the commission of offence along with other co-accused. No injury was however attributed to the petitioner.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the incident in question is stated to have taken place on 19.07.2013. The date of birth of the petitioner is 19.02.1998 and a passport in this regard was duly appended and as such he was less than 15 years of age as on the date of alleged incident and had been falsely implicated. Upon investigation into the matter, the petitioner was found innocent and was kept in column No.2 and not charge sheeted by the Investigating Agency. The statements of the prosecution witnesses i.e. complainant Sarabjit Singh and victim Piara Singh as well as statement of eye-witness Inderjit Singh were recorded on 16.03.2019 as well as on 02.04.2019 wherein it is specifically stated that they had settled their dispute with the accused party and do not want to proceed further in the case and that permission be granted to them to compound the offence and that they have no objection if the accused persons are acquitted. The copies of the said statements of the complainant-victim as well as eye-witnesses had been appended along with petition as Annexure P-3 and P-4 respectively. He submits that a settlement has also been entered into between the petitioner and the complainant as well as the injured witnesses and the compromise deed in this regard has been filed along with the instant petition.

4. As per the paper book, non-bailable warrants against the petitioner were issued vide order dated 13.10.2018 that were received back on 25.10.2018 and a report was furnished that he was not found at the address, whereupon a proclamation was issued vide order dated 02.11.2018 or 21.12.2018. The said proclamation was issued on 13.12.2018 and effected on 15.12.2018. Copies of the non-bailable warrants reported as 2018 and the subsequent proclamation as well as the statement of ASI Laxman Singh were also appended along with the petition as Annexure P-6 to P-11 respectively. It is contended that the proclamation of the petitioner was affixed on 15.12.2018 and case was adjourned to 18.01.2019. The mandatory period of 30 days came to an end and thereafter the petitioner