The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR. The court held that since the petitioner had already been charge-sheeted and framed of charges, no question of quashing arose, applying the precedent of Manjula Sinha.
The petition for quashing of the FIR is dismissed in limine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 29412-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 11.11.2008
Balvir Singh
.. Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab & Ors.
.. Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
**Present:Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate for the petitioner. *****
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
The instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prays for quashing of FIR No.247 dated 25.7.2002, registered at Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana under Section 420 IPC and subsequent proceedings taken therein.
The allegations in the impugned FIR got registered by respondent No.3 Vinod Kumar, are to the effect that the petitioner received Rs.3,95,000/- from the complainant for sending him to Greece but neither he was sent to Greece nor the amount was refunded to him.
The only argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is with reference to the photo copy of passport of Vinod Kumar (Annexure P- 2) to the effect that there is an endorsement of Visa on his passport for going to Greece but the same is of no help to the present petitioner. The allegations in the FIR are that in fact he was given some other ticket, as such he could not board the flight to Greece. Even the co-accused Satnam Singh and Balbir Singh, co-accused had also taken a sum of Rs.50,000/- and the ticket on the pretext that the ticket would be changed but he was not sent to abroad and as such they grabbed an amount of Rs.3,95,000/- from the complainant. There is no dispute that no hard and fast rule can be laid down to the cases in which the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction of
2
quashing of the FIR, but the same has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and has only to be exercised in rarest and exceptional cases. The present case does not fall in any of the category. The Court is not required to determine disputed questions of fact, at this stage. That apart, the present petitioner has already been charge-sheeted by the trial court and it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manjula Sinha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 779 , that question of quashing does not arise where the charges have been framed. Therefore, at this juncture, no case is made out for quashing of the FIR and the instant petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed in limine.
(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE
November 11,2008 Jiten
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction to quash the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the present circumstances.
Whether the petition for quashing the FIR ought to be dismissed in limine given that the petitioner has already been charge-sheeted.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manjula Sinha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.Applied¶17
Manjula Sinha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2007(3) RCR (Crl.) 779
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Balvir Singh
State of Punjab
Arvind Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
