Allowed

Halwinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Nov 2012CRM-M/13736/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner was accused in an FIR for cheating and criminal conspiracy. Petitioner alleged he was abroad in the USA on the date of the alleged offence. The Court held that since the petitioner was not in India, he could not have committed the offence and the proceedings were an abuse of the process of law.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 232 dated 7.11.2010 and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner are quashed.

Halwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-13736 of 2011 (O&M)

¶2

-1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-13736 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.11.2012.

Halwinder Singh

........Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab and another

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. K.D.S.Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab. None for respondent No.2.

¶13

SABINA, J.

¶14

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 232 dated 7.11.2010, under Section 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (' IPC ' for short), registered at Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana (Rural).

¶15

Prosecution story, as per FIR No. 138 dated 9.5.2007 under Section 447, 511, 380, 149, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (' IPC ' for short), registered at Police Station Jagraon, in brief, is that complainant Kirpal Singh had purchased 6 Biswas of land from Ujagar Singh and Dalip Singh in the year 1994. Thereafter, the complainant had constructed his house over the said plot. In the year 2004, an agreement to sell was executed by the complainant in favour of Balwinder Singh qua sale of the said plot for a consideration of ` 5,00,000/-. Complainant had

¶16

-2 -

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-13736 of 2011 (O&M)

¶18

kept certain articles in his house and had locked the same. Complainant came to know that on 8.5.2007, Buta Singh, Harnek Singh along with 4/5 other unknown persons, had taken away the articles lying in his house after breaking open the lock.

¶19

Thereafter, a compromise was effected between the complainant and the brother of the petitioner wherein petitioner was allegedly represented by his attorney. Respondent No.2complainant Karamjit Kaur wife of Kirpal Singh has again lodged the FIR in question (Annexure P-5). The case of respondent No.2-complainant, in brief, is that a compromise was effected with regard to FIR lodged by Kirpal Singh, husband of the complainant, on 28.5.2008. As per the said compromise, Kirpal Singh was to withdraw all the cases against Gurnek Singh and others and sale deed was to be executed qua the land and house in favour of Gurnek Singh. Although Kirpal Singh had withdrawn the cases got registered by him but Gurnek Singh had failed to execute the sale deed in favour of Kirpal Singh, in terms of the compromise.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. In fact, the petitioner was staying in New Jersey and had not visited India in the year 2007.

¶21

Learned State counsel, on verification, has filed the affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police Jagraon, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was not in India on 8.5.2007, the alleged date of occurrence.

¶22

Thus, in the present case, the petitioner was not present in India on the alleged date of occurrence i.e. 8.5.2007

¶23

-3 -

¶24

Crl. Misc. No. M-13736 of 2011 (O&M)

¶25

when theft had allegedly been committed in the house of the complainant. Since the petitioner was not present in India and had, thus, not committed the offence of theft, there was no occasion for the petitioner to enter into a compromise with the husband of respondent No.2. It appears that petitioner has been falsely involved in this case being brother of Gurnek Singh. The present FIR is an outcome of the earlier FIR registered by Kirpal Singh, husband of respondent No.2, bearing No. 138 dated 9.5.2007 under Section 447, 511, 380, 149, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Jagraon. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.

¶26

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 232 dated 7.11.2010, under Section 420, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana (Rural) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, qua the petitioner, are quashed.

¶27

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶28

November 15, 2012 Gurpreet

Halwinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Halwinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sham Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Vinod and Others Vs Jaibir and Another

Patram Vs State of Haryana

Inder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Inderpal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gurjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.