Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the FIR registered under Sections and of the (‘IPC’), Sections and of and Section and of , Sumeet Goel, J., noted that in the present petition, petitioner stated that he had not filed similar petition for quashing before the present Court or the Supreme Court. However, the Court noted that the petitioner had earlier filed the present petition, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 01-04-2024 and the present petition was filed on 17-05-2024. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion was that a deliberate attempt was made to mislead this Court and such surreptitious attempts were needed to be curbed with an iron hand. Thus, the Court imposed the cost of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner, which should be deposited by him with the Trial Court within eight weeks.
Background
In the present case, petitioner submitted that he had been falsely implicated in the impugned FIR. The complainant/victim had already testified before the Court and her testimony was laced with inconsistencies and hence, could not be made as basis for conviction of the petitioner. Further, the trial proceedings, in respect of Section of were illegal as the same was not undertaken by following due procedure as prescribed in law.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that inherent powers under Section of were unbridled, unfettered and plenary in nature. It was unfathomable to make a venture to exhaustively define the nature and extent of these powers. The powers under Section 482 of the CrPC were exercised to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice, and self-restraint was required to be exercised by the High Court while exercising such powers.
The Court stated that a petition filed for quashing of an FIR filed before the High Court did not ipso facto become barred or non-maintainable in a case wherein substantial/material prosecution witnesses were already examined. In such a scenario, the High Court ought to exercise a high degree of circumspection and caution while dealing with such a petition, since it involves adjudication upon the relevance, veracity and sufficiency of prosecution evidence brought on record during trial proceedings. The Court further stated that such exercise of inherent powers was best left to the discretion of the Court, which was in seisin of the matter, as every case was sui generis in nature.
The Court observed that the charges were framed against the petitioner on 02-08-2023, after which the complainant’s testimony was recorded on 12-05-2023 and 15-09-2023, whereas the present petition was brought on 17-05-2024. Considering these facts, the Court observed that the petitioner did not choose to challenge the order framing charges and to quash the FIR, encompassed issues of meticulous analysis especially that of the victim’s testimony, that were best left open to be adjudicated in trial. The Coury opined that engaging in such an analysis at this stage would amount to this Court undertaking a mini trial, which was not appropriate especially at this juncture. Moreover, no compelling or accentuating facts were brought forward that would persuade this Court to hold that continuation of trial proceedings were abuse of process of law or Courts. Thus, the Court dismissed the present petition.
In the present petition, petitioner stated that he had not filed any such or similar petition for quashing before the present Court or the Supreme Court. However, the Court noted that the petitioner had earlier filed the present petition, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 01-04-2024 and the present petition was filed on 17-05-2024. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion was that a deliberate attempt was made to mislead this Court and such surreptitious attempt were needed to be curbed with an iron hand.
Thus, the Court imposed the cost of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner, which should be deposited by him with the Trial Court within eight weeks. In case such costs were deposited, the Trial Court should remit the same to Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Mohali. In case the said costs were not deposited, the Trial Court should intimate the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala who accordingly should recover the cost from the petitioner by all available lawful means, including as arrears of land revenue.
[Supinder Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-25915 of 2024, Order dated 23-05-2024]
For the Petitioner: Prabhjot Singh, Advocate;
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .