Dismissed

Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Dec 2012CRM-M/17799/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR and a proclamation offender order. The court rejected leniency despite acquittal of co-accused due to the petitioner's intentional absence after jumping bail.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing of the FIR, consequential proceedings, and the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender was dismissed.

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

¶1

Crl.Misc.No. M-17799 of 2011 (O&M) 1

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

¶3

Crl.Misc.No. M-17799 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 17.12.2012

Manjit Singh

Petitioner.

Versus

State of Punjab and another Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI.

¶9

Present: - Mr.Rohiteshwar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rupam Aggarwal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

¶10

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI,J.

¶11

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of

¶12

the Code of Criminal Procedure is for quashing of FIR No. 6 dated 05.01.2004, under Sections 148, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, and the order dated 22.08.2007 (Annexure P-2), whereby the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender.

¶13

Brief facts of the case are that Davinder Singh, Karnail Singh, Anchal Singh, Janak Singh, Harjit Singh and the petitioner (Manjit Singh) were booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323

¶14

Crl.Misc.No. M-17799 of 2011 (O&M) 2

¶15

and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, vide FIR No. 6, dated 5.01.2004, Police Station, Mukerian. After investigation, charge sheet (report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) was presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate. Finding a prima facie case, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the petitioner and his co-accused.

¶16

During the course of trial, the petitioner did not appear before the learned trial court on each and every date of hearing, therefore, his bail was cancelled and bail bonds were forfeited to the State. Vide order dated 22.08.2007, the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was led, statements of the co-accused in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded and when the case was posted for recording of defence evidence then an application for permission to compound the offences was presented by the injured persons. Learned trial court held that Sections 148, 323 and 325, IPC were compoundable, therefore, the parties were permitted to compound the offences. Resultantly, the co-accused of the petitioner were acquitted

¶17

Crl.Misc.No. M-17799 of 2011 (O&M)

¶18

¶19

in view of the compromise effected between the parties. The proceedings qua the petitioner remained pending since he was a proclaimed offender and had not faced the trial.

¶20

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was not at fault since he had gone out of India to complete his studies, therefore, he did not appear before the learned trial court. He further submitted that the co-accused of the petitioner had effected a compromise with the aggrieved persons and as a result thereof, they were acquitted. Therefore, the proceedings qua the petitioner be quashed.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State had vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner had intentionally jumped the bail and remained absent for a considerable long time, therefore, the learned trial court had declared him as a proclaimed offender. He further submitted that a person who had no respect for the law should not be shown any indulgence. He also submitted that due to his absence, the case related to the year 2004 remained pending for eight years. He also argued that the petitioner had gone abroad without taking any permission from the learned trial court. He further submitted that the petitioner could not derive any

¶22

Crl.Misc.No. M-17799 of 2011 (O&M) 4

¶23

benefit from the fact that his co-accused had already been acquitted by the learned trial court.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

It is the conceded position that the petitioner jumped bail during the course of trial and was ultimately declared as a proclaimed offender vide order dated 22.08.2007 (Annexure P-2). The FIR is of the year 2004. For the last about eight years, the case is pending. The petitioner ran away from India without any plausible reason. For the last five years, he is evading his arrest. It is settled proposition that a person who has no respect for law should not be shown leniency. The petitioner cannot be extended the benefit of the fact that his co-accused have already been acquitted. It is possible that during course of trial of the petitioner, the prosecution witnesses might depose against him and on the basis of such evidence, the petitioner is convicted and sentenced. The petitioner has also challenged the order (Annexure P-2) whereby he was declared proclaimed offender but the learned counsel for the petitioner could not make out any ground for setting aside the said order.

¶26

Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances

¶27

Crl.Misc.No. M-17799 of 2011 (O&M)

¶28

¶29

of the case, no ground is made out for quashing of the FIR, the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom and the order dated 22.08.2007 (Annexure P-2) whereby the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender and as such the present petition is dismissed.

¶30

Before parting with this order, it would be essential for this court to observe that the learned trial court while acquitting the co-accused of the petitioner vide judgment dated 13.07.2010 (Annexure P-9) observed that the offence punishable under Section 148, IPC was compoundable, was factually wrong. Reference in this regard can be made to Section 320, Cr.P.C. where Section 148, IPC is conspicuously missing from the array of the compoundable offences.

¶31

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE

¶32

17.12.2012 Anoop

¶33

Crl.Misc.No. M-17799 of 2011 (O&M) 6

Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Another

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

Ravinder Vs State of Haryana

Jagdev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Hardev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gurdit Singh and Anr. Vs Ram Singh and Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Anr.