Parminder Singh vs State of Punjab

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR No. 57 dated 4.9.2002 (Annexure P-1), u/s 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Staton Bhadaur Police District Barnala District Sangrur along with order dated 11.11.2005 (Annexure P-4), whereby the Petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender and all the subsequent proceedings.

The contents of the FIR (Annexure P-1) read as under:

Today I, SI along with HC Nachhatarpal No. 423, Constable Balwinder No. 721 Constable (illegible) Lal No. 96, SPO Sher Singh No. 1600 were going from police village Mahal to village Chhirhi Wal on private vehicle in connection with patrolling, when hardly the police party after travelling about one kilometer from village Mahal were standing near the turning point after parking the vehicle, then at about 8.30 a.m.one unknown person was seen coming on scooter from village Chhirhi Wal towards village Mahal and Bhag Singh son of Major Singh, Jat, resident of village Mahal, came to us with whom we were talking and on reaching near, I SI gave the signal with hand for the rider for stopping the schooter and he was over powered with the help of the companions and his name and address was inquired and who on asking disclosed his name as Parmindedr Singh son of Chhinder Singh Caste Jat, resident of Chananwal, Police Station Sadar, Jagraon to whom I, SI asked that there seems to be some illegal things in the front dickey of your scooter Bajaj Chetak No. PB-19-9291 and I want to search the same. Do you want to get the same searched from me or in the presence of some Gazetted Officer or Magistrate on which he replied that he has full faith in me, you can make search of the plastic bag lying in scooter. On this, consent memo of Parminder Singh was recorded. The statement was got attested by Parminder Singh and witness Bhag Singh and Head Constable Nachhattar Pal No. 429. Then I, SI searched the bag after taking the same from the scooter of Parminder Singh, intoxicating pills were recovered from one plastic box from the plastic bag. Out of these 50/50 pills were taken as sample and after putting the same in the small plastic boxes and the remaining tablets on counting came to 2900. The recovered tablets were put in the same box in the same plastic bag, and two parcels were prepared, and were sealed with my seal bearing impression GS. Sample of seal was prepared separately. Both the parcels, sample and bag parcel of intoxicating tablets and scooter were taken into police possession after preparing the memo and the same was attested. The seal after use was handed over to Head Constable Nachhattar Pal No. 429. ON making search of Parminder Singh, currency notes of Rs. 50/- were recovered from the front left pocket of the shirt worn by him, which were taken into police possession according to law. The memo was got attested by accused and the witnesses. Above said Parminder Singh by keeping in his possession 3000 pills of intoxicating substances without holding a valid license/permit , has committed an offence u/s 22 of NDPS Act. A ruqa is being sent to the police station Bhadaur through constable (illegible) No. 96 for the registration of the case against the above said Parminder Singh.

After hearing learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that no ground for quashing of the FIR and the order, whereby the Petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender is made out.

In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , the Apex Court has held as under:

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/Respondent No. 2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under Crl. Misc. No. M- 32763 of 2010 (O&M) which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.

The FIR in this case was registered way back in the year 2002. There are allegations against the Petitioner that intoxicating pills had been recovered from his possession. The Petitioner thereafter left for a foreign country and was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 11.11.2005. There is no averment in the petition as to when the Petitioner had gone abroad. It appears that after registration of the FIR, the Petitioner in order to avoid the criminal liability fled away to a foreign country. The Petitioner had initially filed CRM-M No. 52617 of 2002 seeking quashing of the FIR but had not prosecuted the same and following order was passed by this Court in the said petition on 11.7.2008:

The present petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of Annexure P-4 FIR No. 57 dated 4.9.2002, registered at Police Staton Bhadaur Police District Barnala District Sangrur under Sections 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Notice was issued by this Court on 13.1.2003. No stay was granted. By now the trial may have concluded or may have made considerable progress.

Nobody is present on behalf of the Petitioner. The present petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner that in case trial has not concluded, he will be at liberty to file a fresh petition stating therein the particulars regarding the outcome and progress of the trial. Needless to say, the petition to be filed shall be accompanied by the details of the proceedings pending in the trial Court and the orders passed on each date shall be furnished along with the etition.

With the present petition, the Petitioner has attached the identity card to the effect that he was a pharmacist but the Petitioner has not placed on record any permit or licence authorising him to keep the pills recovered from his possession. The Petitioner has apparently still not returned to India to face the trial and has rather sought quashing of the FIR through his attorney. Since the Petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender, no ground for interference by this Court is made out.