Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 503 (PNJ)

Malook Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-03-27

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2012
JUDGMENT RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner who is residing abroad and is a Proclaimed Offender has filed this petition through Special Power of Attorney seeking quashing of FIR No.313 dated 13.12.1990, under Sections 506 IPC, registered at Police Station Station Civil Lines, Amritsar and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2. It is the petitioner's own case that the proceedings on the basis of the aforesaid FIR were pending and were in his knowledge when he left India. The petition is totally silent with regard to any permission granted by the Court of competent jurisdiction to allow him to go out of country during the pendency of the proceedings in the aforesaid FIR. 3. Not only this, it is his own contention that two co-accused namely Shangara Singh and Amrik Singh have been acquitted and one co-accused-Raghbir Singh had been convicted and sentenced vide order dated 11.02.1997. 4. Despite the fact that he is in knowledge of fact that he has been declared Proclaimed Offender and such order has not been challenged by him till date and existing against him; the same has not been placed on the record of this petition. Even this petition is silent with regard to aforesaid factum of declaring him Proclaimed Offender. 5. Not only this, petitioner has earlier filed CRM No.M-3726 of 2009 before this Court for quashing of the aforesaid FIR and subsequent proceedings and in that petition a judgment dated 11.02.1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, arising out of the said FIR was also attached as Annexure P2 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender on 09.10.1995. Yet no effort has been made to challenge the said order. What to talk of placing on record and challenging the said order, not even a whisper has been made in the petition with regard to said fact. 6. It may also be relevant to refer the order dated 10.02.2009, 04.03.2009 and 25.03.2009 passed in CRM No.M-3726 of 2009 which reads thus:- 10.02.2009 “It has been very fairly stated in the petition that petitioner got a marriage proposal from a Canadian citizen. Therefore, on pretext of marriage, he migrated to Canada and was declared a proclaimed offender. Counsel has further stated that two of the co-accused were acquitted and one was convicted and was later released on probation by the appellate Court. Therefore, on pretext of marriage, he migrated to Canada and was declared a proclaimed offender. Counsel has further stated that two of the co-accused were acquitted and one was convicted and was later released on probation by the appellate Court. Offence fall under Section 506 IPC. Issue notice of motion to AG, Punjab and respondent No.2 for 4th March, 2009. Let petitioner bow before the majesty of law. Petitioner to cause appearance before the trial Court on or before 27th February, 2009. In case petitioner appears before the trial Court, he shall be released on interim bail.” 04.03.2009 “Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that two deaths had taken place in his family, therefore, order dated February 10, 2009 could not be conveyed to the petitioner. Since counsel for the petitioner has taken the entire fault upon him due to bereavement in his family, this Court has no other option except to modify the order dated February 10, 2009. For the reasons stated in order dated February 10, 2009, is modified. In case petitioner surrenders before the trial Court on or before 20th March, 2009, he shall be released on interim bail. Case to come up for hearing on 25th March, 2009.” 25.03.2009 “Counsel for the petitioner prays that he be permitted to withdraw the present petition. As prayed, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn.” 7. A perusal of the aforesaid orders would show that petitioner was given an opportunity twice to appear before the trial Court with a direction to release him on interim bail, yet he failed to avail said opportunity. 8. It may also be noticed that in the aforesaid CRM No.M-3726 of 2009, a specific averment was made in Para No.6 which reads thus:- “That petitioner is ready to abide all the terms and conditions, which shall be imposed by the Hon'ble Court, while entertaining the quashing proceedings.” 9. In spite of the aforesaid submission made, petitioner failed to abide by the orders dated 10.02.2009 and 04.03.2009 passed by this Court. Now, same averment has been made again in Para No.7 which reads thus:- “That petitioner is ready to abide all the terms and conditions, which shall be imposed by the Hon'ble Court, while entertaining the quashing proceedings.” 10. In spite of the aforesaid submission made, petitioner failed to abide by the orders dated 10.02.2009 and 04.03.2009 passed by this Court. Now, same averment has been made again in Para No.7 which reads thus:- “That petitioner is ready to abide all the terms and conditions, which shall be imposed by the Hon'ble Court, while entertaining the quashing proceedings.” 10. It may also be noticed that in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court in CRM No.M-3726 of 2009, this petition itself is not maintainable before this Court. Moreover, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked in favour of an absconder of the law of this country by granting him any protection or providing him passage to return back at his own sweet Will. 11. From the facts as narrated above, it is clearly made out that this petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 12. In these circumstances, this petition is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only). 13. The costs shall be deposited with the Punjab Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh, within two months from today. In case of failure to deposit the aforesaid costs, the aforesaid Authority shall be competent to recover the same in accordance with law.