Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
AMRINDER SINGH @ RAJA THROUGH SPA HOLDER SUKHJINDER SINGH – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
CRL.M.C.-1571/2021
A petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR and subsequent proceedings cannot be filed through an SPA holder, as the accused's personal appearance is required in criminal cases.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF FIR - POWER OF ATTORNEY - MAINTAINABILITY - [Section 482 CrPC, Section 2 Power of Attorney Act]
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought to quash an FIR and subsequent proceedings through his Special Power of Attorney (SPA) holder, claiming no evidence against him and that he was only implicated based on a co-accused's disclosure statement.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petition was not maintainable as it was filed through an SPA holder, citing precedents that require personal appearance of the accused in criminal cases unless there is a recognized disability.
Issues: Maintainability of a petition under Section 482 CrPC filed through an SPA holder.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 482 CrPC requires the personal appearance of the accused in criminal cases, and Section 2 of the Power of Attorney Act cannot override this specific statutory provision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition as not maintainable and declined to grant permission to file the quashing petition.
CRL.M.C. 1571/2021
Page 1 of 6
(VIA VIDEO-CONFERENCING)
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on
: 28.10.2021
%
Pronounced on : 04.01.2022
+
CRL.M.C. 1571/2021
AMRINDER SINGH @ RAJA THROUGH: SPA HOLDER
SUKHJINDER SINGH
..... Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Rajiv Kumar Garg, Advocate
versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
.... Respondent
Through:
Dr. M.P. Singh, APP for the State
with SI Rajesh Kumar PS IGI Airport.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
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/s
2022:DHC:49
CRL.M.C. 1571/2021
Page 2 of 6
82/83 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
2022:DHC:49
CRL.M.C. 1571/2021
Page 3 of 6
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.
2022:DHC:49
CRL.M.C. 1571/2021
Page 4 of 6
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
