Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
Sukhwinder Singh through his SPA & Ors. - Petitioners - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr. - Respondents - Respondent
CRM-M-7189 of 2023(O&M)
Decided On : 18-10-2023
Quashing of FIR - Compromise - Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 409, 477-A IPC - 482 Cr.PC
Fact of the Case:
The petition under Section 482 Cr.PC sought the quashing of FIR No. 147 dated 24.5.2014 under various sections of IPC based on a compromise dated 01.02.2023. The petitioner contended that a compromise had been reached, while the State Counsel argued that the petitioners were absconders with multiple pending cases against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a proclaimed offender cannot seek quashing of the FIR on the basis of a compromise, especially when absconding in multiple cases. The court dismissed the petition for quashing the FIR.
Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR should be quashed based on a compromise, considering the petitioners' status as proclaimed offenders and absconders in multiple cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a proclaimed offender cannot seek quashing of the FIR on the basis of a compromise, unless there are compelling circumstances such as being a minor, insane, or suffering from a disability. The court emphasized that the accused must submit to the jurisdiction of the Courts before seeking remedies.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for quashing the FIR at the instance of petitioner nos.1 to 4, while granting liberty to petitioners nos.5 to 14 to file a fresh quashing petition separately on the basis of a compromise, if advised.
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The prayer in the petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of FIR No. 147 dated 24.5.2014 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 409, 477-A IPC registered at P.S. Kapurthala City, Kapurthala along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure P-2).
2. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that a compromise has been effected between the parties in terms of which a sum of Rs.5 Crore has been paid to the respondent/complainant and, therefore, the FIR and all the proceedings emanating therefrom were required to be quashed in view of the compromise.
3. The Counsel for the State on the other hand contends that petitioner nos.1 to 4 are serial offenders and have multiple cases registered against them in some of which they have been declared proclaimed offenders and the details are as under:-
| Sr. No. | FIR No., Date & P.S. | Offence | Status |
| 1. | 18 dated 27.11.1997 P.S. Division No.4 | 188/148/149 IPC | Convicted on 30.06.1998 |
| 2. | 116 dated 22.04.2014 P.S. City Kapurthala | 379 IPC | Declared PO on 27.01.2017 later acquitted on 13.10.2017 |
| 3. | 60 dated 26.04.2014 P.S. Metor | 406/420 IPC | Cancellation Report returned for further investigation by learned Trial Court on 13.11.2021 |
| 4. | 196 dated 12.11.2014 P.S. Navi Baradari | 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC | Petitioner declared PO on 26.04.2016 |
| 5. | 545 dated 24.12.2014 P.S. Sector 39, Chandigarh, later transferred to Central Sector 17, Chandigarh | 420/467/468/471/120-B IPC
| N.A. |
| 6. | 270 dated 16.11.2015 P.S. City | 174-A | Declared P.O. on 30.01.2019 |
PETITIONER NO.2-KARNAIL SINGH S/o Gian Singh
| Sr. No. | FIR No., Date & P.S. | Offence | Status |
| 1. | 196 dated 12.11.2014 P.S. Navi Baradari | 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC | Petitioner declared PO on 17.08.2016 |
| 2. | 270 dated 16.11.2015 P.S. City | 174-A | Declared P.O. on 30.01.2019 |
PETITIONER NO.3-AMARJIT KAUR @ AMANJIT KAUR Wife of Sh. Sukhwinder Singh
| Sr. No. | FIR No., Date & P.S. | Offence | Status |
| 1. | 60 dated 26.04.2014 P.S. Metor | 406/420 IPC | Cancellation Report returned for further investigation by learned Trial Court on 13.11.2021 |
| 2. | 196 dated 12.11.2014 P.S. Navi Baradari | 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC | Petitioner declared PO on 26.04.2016 |
| 3. | 270 dated 16.11.2015 P.S. City | 174-A | Declared P.O. on 30.01.2019 |
| 4. | 545 dated 24.12.2014 P.S. Sector 39, Chandigarh, later transferred to Central Sector 17, Chandigarh | 420/467/468/471/120 -B IPC | N.A. |
PETITIONER NO.4-PARAMJIT SINGH S/o Sh. Harbans Singh
| Sr. No. | FIR No., Date & P.S. | Offence | Status |
| 1. | 60 dated 26.04.2014 P.S. Metor | 406/420 IPC | Cancellation Report returned for further investigation by learned Trial Court on 13.11.2021 |
4. The State Counsel contends that the pendency of the aforementioned cases along with this fact that the petitioners no.1 to 4 are absconders has not been disclosed in the instant petition. In para 11 of the petition it is only stated that the petitioners had not been convicted in any other case. As per the anonymous complaint filed in the Court and the evidence available, it is apparent that there were serious allegations against the petitioner no.1 who is alleged to have siphoned off hundred of crores of rupees and has fled to USA. The bail application of the petitioner was dismissed upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. While the petitioner nos.1 to 4 had been declared proclaimed offenders the other petitioners had surrendered and had been granted the concession of bail. As the petitioners no.1 to 4 were proclaimed offenders not only in the present FIR but in the other cases as well the instant petition had been filed by them through a power of attorney the same was liable to be dismissed.
5. The Counsel for the complainant on the other hand contends that he has no objection if t
A proclaimed offender cannot seek quashing of the FIR on the basis of a compromise, unless there are compelling circumstances such as being a minor, insane, or suffering from a disability.
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.
Criminal proceedings require the personal appearance of the accused, and petitions cannot be filed through a power of attorney holder unless the accused has a recognized legal disability.
The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process, and not to stifle legitimate prosecution.
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
