- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mehnga Singh v. State Of Punjab .
Factual and Procedural Background
This petition seeks the quashing of FIR No. 126 dated 27.5.1996, lodged under Sections 406, 498-A, 427, 342, 120-B, and 34 of the IPC at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar. The FIR was filed by Harjinder Kaur Sidhu, wife of the petitioner, against the petitioner and several family members. Except the petitioner, all accused were acquitted on 5.6.1999 due to the complainant's non-appearance and lack of supporting witness testimony. Subsequently, the petitioner was declared a Proclaimed Offender despite never being served, as he was out of India. The petitioner now seeks quashing of the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the FIR lodged against the petitioner can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. considering the facts of the case.
- Whether the judgment in Jagdeep Singh @ Rana v. State of Haryana (1987) is applicable to the present case for quashing the FIR.
- Whether the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised in favour of a person declared a Proclaimed Offender who is absconding or avoiding service.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner relied on the judgment in Jagdeep Singh @ Rana v. State of Haryana (1987), arguing that the FIR against him is liable to be quashed.
- He contended that after lodging the FIR, circumstances changed including divorce and remarriage of the parties, and that he was declared Proclaimed Offender without being served as he was abroad.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Jagdeep Singh @ Rana v. State of Haryana, 1987 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 203 | Whether a statement made to police is admissible and if a person can be proceeded against solely on that basis without other evidence. | The court found this precedent irrelevant to the present case as the issues differ fundamentally. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the petitioner's reliance on the Jagdeep Singh @ Rana case and found it inapplicable because that case dealt with the admissibility of police statements and proceeding without other evidence, unlike the present facts. The court noted the general principle that a person declared a Proclaimed Offender must first approach the court that issued the proclamation to challenge it, and that Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not ordinarily exercised in favor of absconding persons. However, considering the peculiar circumstances—specifically, the complainant’s failure to appear as a witness, lack of support from other witnesses, and the changed personal relationship between the parties (divorce and remarriage)—the court deemed this an exceptional case. It concluded that it would be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. rather than requiring him to approach the trial court first.
Holding and Implications
The petition to quash FIR No. 126 dated 27.5.1996 is allowed.
The proceedings against the petitioner are quashed in the interest of justice due to the exceptional facts of the case, including the complainant’s non-appearance and changed circumstances between the parties. This decision directly affects the parties by terminating the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The opinion does not establish a broader precedent regarding the exercise of Section 482 Cr.P.C. powers in cases involving proclaimed offenders who are absconding.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.:— This petition seeks quashing of FIR No. 126 dated 27.5.1996, under Sections 406/498-A/427/342/120-B/34 IPC, Police Station Sadar Jalandhar.
2. The FIR was lodged by Harjinder Kaur Sidhu wife of the petitioner, against the petitioner, his father Sarup Singh, his brother Surjit Singh, his mother Mohinder Kaur and his sister Narinder Kaur. Except the petitioner, all others were acquitted vide judgment dated 5.6.1999, as the complainant did not appear as a witness and all other witnesses did not support the version of the complainant. According to the petitioner, the situation after lodging the FIR changed and there was divorce between the parties and the complainant also remarried. It is further stated that the petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender though he was never served as he was out of India.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of judgment in Jagdeep Singh @ Rana v. State of Haryana, 1987 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 203, the FIR against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.
4. After going through the said judgment, I do not find any relevance of the said judgment to the present case, wherein the issue involved was whether a statement before the Police was inadmissible and whether a person could be proceeded against only on the basis of statement made to the Police and there was no other evidence.
5. Normally, a person who is declared Proclaimed Offender, has to be required to first move the Court which declared him Proclaimed Offender and even an objection against validity of proclamation is required to be raised in the first instance before the Court which issued the proclamation and power under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not to be exercised in favour of a person, who is absconding or avoiding service.
6. However, having regard to peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case including the fact that the complainant did not appear as a witness and other witnesses also did not support the complainant's version and the fact that the parties had been divorced and have been remarried, I am of the view that this case falls in an exceptional category where instead of requiring the petitioner to move the trial Court, his grievance should be considered in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C In my opinion, it will be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in FIR No. 126 dated 27.5.1996 Order accordingly.
Order accordingly.
Alert