Jalandhar v. Jalandhar

Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. T.S. Salana, DAG, Punjab for respondent no.1-State. Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2. -- Sham Sunder, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the First Information Report No.09 dated 21.01.2002, under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Crl. Misc. No. M-31815 of 2009 2 Lambra, District Jalandhar, (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, has been filed by the petitioners, on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2).

2. The aforesaid FIR was registered, against the petitioners, on the basis of the statement of Sukhwinder Singh son of Bashikhi Ram, r/o village Jugral, respondent no.2, on the allegations that his elder brother was residing in Foreign Country at Behrien. The complainant, being unemployed, his parents decided to send him abroad. The sister of the complainant namely Surjit Kaur, married Charanjit Ram r/o village Kala Bakra, Police Station Mehatpur, District Jalandhar. Kartar Singh s/o Pal Singh, used to come to the house of his sister. The complainant disclosed his intention to his sister to go abroad. Kartar Singh, told the sister of the complainant, that if anybody wanted to go abroad, he( Kartar Singh) could send him. He also told that his agent Charles and his wife namely Parveen r/o Akbarpur and his brother-in-law Balkar Singh son of Joginder Singh, rs/o village Chuharwali, District Kapurthala, were sending the persons to foreign Country. The deal was finalised in the sum of Rs.4,10,000/- for sending the complainant to foreign Country. In June 2001, Crl. Misc. No. M-31815 of 2009 3 Charles, petitioner no.2 (proclaimed offender) and his wife Parveen and Balkar Singh alongwith Kartar Singh, came to their house, and told the father of the complainant for sending him (complainant) abroad, on receipt of a sum of Rs.4,10,000/-. They also told that they will send the complainant directly to Italy. A total sum of Rs.4,05,000/- was paid to the petitioners. Kartar Singh, one of the petitioners, took the responsibility that if Parveen and Charles, petitioner nos. 1 and 2, committed any fraud, he will be responsible for the same. It was further stated that even the passport of the complainant was given to the petitioners. After some days, the petitioners took the complainant to Delhi, from where he was taken to Nigeria. The complainant was kept there for three months, but he was not sent to Italy. Ultimately, the complainant was sent back. Neither the complainant was sent to foreign Country, nor the amount, in question, was returned to him. It was stated that the petitioners hatched a conspiracy, in pursuance whereof they cheated the complainant.

3. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. Crl. Misc. No. M-31815 of 2009 4

4. The Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a compromise, has been arrived at, between the parties and there remains, no dispute, between them. He has, however, submitted that Charles, petitioner no.2, has been declared as proclaimed offender. He has further submitted that Charles, petitioner no.2, has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court till date. He has further submitted that since the parties have arrived at a compromise, no useful purpose shall be served for keeping the proceedings alive. He, thus, prayed for quashing the FIR and the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom.

5. The Counsel respondent- complainant no.2, has also stated that the compromise has been arrived at, between him, and the petitioners. He has further submitted that the FIR and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, be quashed.

6. The Counsel for respondent no.1-State has, however, submitted that Charles, petitioner no.2, has already been declared proclaimed offender. He has further submitted that the case relates to the year 2002 and the charges have already been framed, against the accused- petitioners. He has further submitted that Charles, petitioner no.2, being a proclaimed offender, had no locus Crl. Misc. No. M-31815 of 2009 5 standi to file the instant petition for quashing the FIR, in question, until and unless, he submits himself to the jurisdiction of the Court. He has further submitted that, it is not a fit case, for quashing the FIR, and the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom.

7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition is liable to be dismissed,for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. No doubt, the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are compoundable, but the offence, punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, is not at all compoundable, as per the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Not only this, one of the accused-petitioners, namely Charles, petitioner no.2, has already been declared proclaimed offender. He is the main accused, in the case, as he being the travel agent, alongwith his wife Parveen, petitioner no.1, allegedly hatched a conspiracy with his co-accused and cheated the complainant in the sum of Rs.4,05,000/-. Section 482 Cr.P.C., vests the Court with extra ordinary power. Such power is required to be exercised, very sparingly, only with Crl. Misc. No. M-31815 of 2009 6 a view to do complete justice and prevent injustice. The case against all the accused-petitioners, is to be tried together and cannot be segregated, on the basis of compromise. A person, who has already been declared proclaimed offender and has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court, by throwing the provisions of law, to the winds, under the guise of compromise, cannot seek the quashing of the FIR and the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom. If the FIR qua a proclaimed offender is quashed, then there will be total lawlessness in the society. As stated above, the case of Charles, petitioner no.2, who was declared proclaimed offender, is not distinct and separate from the case of the other petitioners, and, therefore, the same cannot be segregated, the continuation of the FIR, and the subsequent proceedings, in these circumstances, would not amount to sheer abuse of the process of the Court.

8. The Counsel for the petitioners, however, placed reliance on Parmbir Singh Gill v. Malkiat Kaur, 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) in support of his contention, that compromise in respect of two petitioners, leaving aside Charles, petitioner no.2, who was declared proclaimed offender, could be accepted. Had the case, Crl. Misc. No. M-31815 of 2009 7 against the three petitioners, been not inter-linked, and could be segregated, the matter would have been different. In Parambir Singh Gill's case (supra), the complaint, qua one of the petitioners, on the basis of compromise, was quashed on the ground that the incident, in respect of the petitioner, therein, who had sought quashing, was distinct and separate, from other petitioners. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the petitioners, from the aforesaid case, the facts thereof, being distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioners, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 9 For the reasons recorded above, petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the First Information Report No.09 dated 21.01.2002, Sections 406 , 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Lambra, District Jalandhar, and also the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, is dismissed.

10. It is, however, made clear that if Charles, petitioner no.2, submits himself to the jurisdiction of the trial Court and thereafter the parties arrived at a compromise, in toto, the petitioners in those circumstances, would be at liberty, to resort to the legal remedy by filing a Crl. Misc. No. M-31815 of 2009 8 petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. afresh.

11. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case.

12. The Registry shall send copies of the order to the Courts concerned, immediately.

19.02.2010 dinesh (Sham Sunder) Judge