Avtar Singh vs State of Punjab and another

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—The petitioner-Avtar Singh has filed this petition for quashing of the order dated 28.02.2011 (Annexure P2) whereby he was declared proclaimed offender by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nawan Shahar, in FIR No. 04 dated 29.05.2010 registered at Police Station City Banga for offence u/s 406/420 IPC and also for quashing of the aforesaid FIR on the basis of compromise dated 27.4.2011 (Annexure P3). Admittedly, petitioner is proclaimed offender and residing abroad. It is also relevant to notice that even at the time of alleged compromise, the petitioner was not present in India.

The various orders passed by this Court from time to time read thus:

13.07.2011

Petitioner seeks the quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise. It appears that there are two accused named in the FIR.

Counsel for the petitioner seeks time to confirm whether he wants to file quashing petition on behalf of the other accused also.

Adjourned to 18.07.2011.

18.07.2011.

Notice of motion for 18.08.2011.

In the meantime, petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court and the trial Court shall release the petitioner on interim bail subject to its satisfaction.

18.08.2011.

On request of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, adjourned to 12.12.2011.

12.12.2011.

On request, list on 02.04.2012.

Noticing the facts established on record on 02.04.2012, this Court passed the following order:

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 28.2.2011 whereby he was declared proclaimed offender in FIR No. 4 dated 29.5.2010 registered at Police Station City Banga for offence u/s 406/420 IPC and also for quashing of the aforesaid FIR on the basis of compromise dated 27.4.2011 (Annexure P-3).

Upon notice, reply by way of affidavit of Sh. Jagwinder Singh Cheema, P.P.S., Deputy Superintendent of Police Banga Sub Division Distt. SBS Nagar, on behalf of the respondent-State, has been filed wherein preliminary submission has been made which reads thus:-"That the petitioner had due knowledge and notice about the registration of the case FIR No. 4 dated 29.5.2010 registered against him and his co-accused Harjinder Singh, u/s 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code, in Police Station Banga, on the basis of complaint of complainant-respondent No. 2 Kulwinder Kaur on the allegations that Avtar Singh son of Piara Singh, Caste Jat, resident of village Kahma, presently residing in United Kingdom was her distant relative. In the month of June 2009, she received a telephonic call from Avtar Singh that he had come to know from her relative that the complainant wanted to send her son to United Kingdom and she replied that she will discuss with her husband and accordingly she had discussion with her husband Amrik Singh regarding sending her son Gurjit Singh to United Kingdom and then she had a talk with the petitioner to send son to United Kingdom, who informed the complainant that Harjinder Singh son of Didar Singh, Resident of Hoshiarpur was his partner, whose phone number was 94633-65050 and she should talk to him. Accordingly, the complainant had a talk with Harjinder Singh, who received Rs. 3 lacs from her for sending her son Gurjit Singh to United Kingdom, but neither he sent her son to United Kingdom nor returned the amount of Rs. 3 lacs to her. The petitioner intentionally and will fully kept evading his arrest and consequently, process u/s 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued against him. The impugned order dated 28-2-2011 vide which the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender is perfectly legal and valid and, thus is not liable to be quashed. After due investigation, challan against Harjinder Singh co-accused of the petitioner was presented in the court and he is facing trial in the court of Sh. Randhir Verma, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, SBS Nagar. Even presently the petitioner is residing in United Kingdom and, thus he is a habitual offender. No such alleged compromise is admitted nor any such compromise has even been brought to the notice of the answering respondent. The only remedy available to the petitioner is to surrender in the court and to face trial. The petition is malafide and has been filed with an oblique motive to evade his arrest and consequential criminal prosecution and, as such, it being devoid of any merits, deserves to be dismissed on this short ground.

It may also be noticed that while issuing notice of motion on 18.7.2011, this Court had directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court and with a further direction to the trial Court to release the petitioner on interim bail subject to its satisfaction.

Counsel for the petitioner has no instructions

in this regard.

List on 4.4.2012.

To be shown in the urgent list.

Counsel for the petitioner may seek instructions.

Today learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has prayed that this petition be ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn.

From the facts established on record, it is crystal clear that petitioner who is a proclaimed offender and has no respect to the orders passed by this Court has made an effort to abuse the process of law by initiating these proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C while sitting abroad and has wasted precious time of the Court. This petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Prayer for withdrawal of the petition is declined. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is dismissed.