Declared offenders cannot seek to take back the FIR based on an understanding by filing petitions Through the power of attorneys leaving out the special circumstances. P&H High court
Title
State of Punjab & Anr Versus Sukhwinder Singh through his SPA & Ors
Decided on:18.10.2023
CRM-M-7189-2023(O&M)
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Introduction
During a ruling by the Punjab & Haryana High Court legitimacy of legal petitions stuffed through a power of attorney in criminal cases has been made clear.
Facts of the case
The petitioners looked around for quashing of FIR under various sections of IPC. The grounds for the aforesaid entreaty were purely based on an understanding dated 1st Feb of 2023.
Justice Jusjit Singh Bedi said a declared offender cannot look around for revocation of the FIR based on a secret understanding, more, so when he is a fugitive in multiple cases pending against him.
After scrutinization while hearing the plea filed through distinct power of attorney under section 482 of Cr, PC for quashing of FIR lodged in 2014 for committing fraud under sections 420,406,467,468,471,120-B,409,477 of IPC.
In the abovementioned case, it was also stated that the petitioners had extorted over 100 cr of rupees and fled to the USA.
The petitioners capitulated that a secret understanding has been in upshot between the parties in terms of which a sum of 5cr has been paid to the complainant and therefore FIR and all the proceedings are in flow were required to be revoked.
Court analysis and decision
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, in his judgment, shed light on the legitimacy of the petition, especially considering that the petitioners included declared offenders and fugitives.
Justice Bedi noted a serious allegation had been leveled particularly against the first petitioner for siphoning off crores of rupees and fleeing to the USA
the Court said that a petition can be filed through Power of Attorney only if the petitioner is, “a minor, insane, suffering from disability or for certain compelling circumstances is unable to appear in person.”
Consequently, the Court held there was no reason to quash the FIR based on a compromise.
Written By
Kaulav roy chowdhury