Proclaimed Offender Indicted With Serious Allegations Cannot Seek Quashing Of FIR Based On Compromise: Punjab And Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an individual, who has been declared a proclaimed offender, cannot request for the dismissal of an FIR based on a compromise with the complainant, especially when he is absconding in multiple cases. The Court dismissed the Petition challenging quashing of FIR on grounds that a compromise was effected between the Petition and the Complainant/Respondent.
“Coming back to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that multiple cases are pending against the petitioner nos.1 to 4. They are proclaimed offenders in some of those cases including the present case and serious allegations have been particularly levelled against petitioner no.1 of siphoning off crores of rupees and fleeing to USA. A proclaimed offender cannot seek quashing of the FIR on the basis of a compromise, more so, when he is absconding in multiple cases pending against him. He cannot short circuit the system by filing petitions through Powers of Attorney unless he was a minor, insane, suffering from disability or for certain compelling circumstances is unable to appear in person”, Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi observed.
Advocate Vikram Anand appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate S.S. Narula appeared for the Petitioner nos 2 and 4 to 9. Additional Solicitor General H.S. Sitta appeared for the State and Advocate Akshay Jain appeared for the Respondent (State Bank Of India).
The Petitioner approached the Court by way of a Criminal Petition seeking to quash FIR filed under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 409 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Petitioner contended that a compromise was effected between the parties and a consideration of Rs 5 Lakh was paid to the Complainant/Respondent. However, the State contended that the First to the Fourth Petitioners were repeat offenders and were absconders.
The Court reiterated that a proclaimed offender cannot seek quashing of the FIR based on a compromise, more so, when he is absconding in multiple cases pending against him. The Court while referring to the cases of Sarabjit Singh v State Of Punjab And Others [CRM-M No.26957 of 2021], Samantha Christina Delfina Willis & Ors. v State of Karnataka & Ors.[WP No.24602-2021] and Sarabjit Singh v State of Punjab & Anr. [2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 87], observed that such an offender cannot short-circuit the system by filing multiple petitions through power of attorney except in certain circumstances. The Court held that for justice to be served, the accused must submit to the jurisdiction of the courts and then seek remedies per the law.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Sukhwinder Singh through his SPA & Ors. v State of Punjab & Anr. (2023:PHHC:136048)
