High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/7189/2023dismissed

Sukhwinder Singh Through His Spa Holders And Others v. State Of Punjab And Another

2023-10-18Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi14 pages

CRMM71892023(O&M) #1# 2023:PHHC:136048

!"#!$%&%"'())

*+,-.%'/!0*%'1- -0"+1--%&* 0&

* !"# +'23'0 ( 45 ) *** ! " #$%& ' "! () *+ ,- ...

**6)

5/ 0 * $1# 22 45- $6#$7#8 $ $#8$89$96$91 $6 #8,$8&$66-24 :

2*:

4 ) 3 4 4) 8 8##8#;<= #/ # 02 )) 72 ) > 5-

CRMM71892023(O&M) #2# 2023:PHHC:136048

4 4 3 )3 ; 02

$ 4 4 * )

)* 78 **9"70'%:*%'1- *0)")

")6 !

)*) ##!'$!

* +&

&&6 " $

11> $1> $&-2 2 ;889 &&1 #

##8$#8 $ 2*:

;6&-2 " ? #68 #8 6 3

; 8#8 ; #98$#8 $ $89>$#8-2 2 4 )* 0 2 ;

#8#

#8 $

, $#8 $89 $97 $96 $91$6 #8,-2 ?#98$#8 7 7$7 #$ ##8 $

;& 24 2

624 $#8>$96>$91>$6 > #8 ,-2

9 #68

#8 7 2*

6$ " ? ;88 #8 &

)7 5**9"%'*%'1- *0)")

")6 !

)*) ##!'$!

* +&

#8 $

, $#8 $89 $97 $96 $91$6 #8,-2 ? 681#8

CRMM71892023(O&M) #3# 2023:PHHC:136048 # #68

#8 7 2*

6$ " ? ;88 #8 &

) 7

8%#!"# *-)*+,-.%'/!0*%'1- *0)")

")6 !

)*) ##!'$!

* +&

#98$#8 $ $89>$#8-2 2 4 )* 0 2 ;

#8#

#8 $

, $#8 $89 $97 $96 $91$6 #8,-2 ?#98$#8 ; #68

#8 7 2*

6$ " ? ;88 #8 & $ 7$7 #$ ##8 $

;& 24 2

624 $#8>$96>$91>$6 > #8 ,-2

)< **9"*-)03'&*%'1- *0)")

")6 !

)*) ##!'$!

* +&

#98$#8 $ $89>$#8-2 2 4 )* 0 2 ;

#8#

$ 0 2 * 4 $ ) ) -

* )*

CRMM71892023(O&M) #4# 2023:PHHC:136048 * 2 )

4 4 4

@ 0)

'A)

2 B $ )

)4 ) $ * 5- ) ))* 4

* )) 7 02 )( 5- 3 9 -2 6 , 4 )

( 4 'A)

2 '42 0'A)

2 -Virender Prasad Singh Vs. Rajesh Bhardwaj & Ors. 2010(4) RCR(Criminal) 93 C

!! "

$ # #% ##

#% # #

A Section 482 application on the plea that the investigation is not proper at the instance of the accused who does not choose to even

CRMM71892023(O&M) #5# 2023:PHHC:136048 appear before the Sessions Judge before whom the matter is pending, should immediately have put the High Court on guard before entertaining the petition which has no bonafides whatsoever& # % #

% # % % #

# ( %

) * * %

)*+

, "

, % %

$- *-+ ./ !!.

0 !! 2, 2 Sarabjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 87 C0 )

# % # % 1 2 31 4 . , # %

# # % % #

# #5 - $

# #% # !6!/ ! # % % # !! !%

7 %

!6!/ ! 6 $ # % #

CRMM71892023(O&M) #6# 2023:PHHC:136048 # % %

7 5 %

8# 1 2 % # 1

# #

# %9 #

9# # #

# + % 6./ # # 9 + $ $% # #

# # %

# : 9 # % ## #%

# #

# #% % % #

# "

! #

;Amit Ahuja Vs. Gian Parkash Bhambri", 2010 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 586% # # # %

< # & % ;Kuldeep Singh Jaswal Vs. Jaspal Singh", 2016 (2) AICLR 703%

" #

CRMM71892023(O&M) #7# 2023:PHHC:136048 %) &

;Mangal Dass Gautam Vs. State of Haryana", 2020 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 382% 9#

1 =

+ 9 #

# #

# 9 >7 ;/

% = + %6./

+ $ $ 4 #

# + $ '

+ # #

+ $

+ % 6./ '

5 - # # '

# %

# '

9 9

+ %6./? % #

8 1 #

;T.C.Mathai Vs. The District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram", AIR 1999 SC 1385% $9

>7 ;1 + $ $ '

# # #

CRMM71892023(O&M) #8# 2023:PHHC:136048

# ( ## 1 !B

# ( %# #

1 ./

% & #

1 # ? /

8 1 #

( ) * #8 3 4% %

& #

;Pravin Niwritti Sawant Vs.

Nisha Pravin Sawant and another", 2007(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 841%

;Naveed Akhthar Vs. State of Kerala, 2016 SCC Online Kerala 13587? 14.

At this juncture, the analysis of the facts of this case reveal that the petitioner voluntarily disengaged himself with the trial proceedings, who left the country without seeking any permission from the trial Court, therefore, this petition filed through the Special power of attorney holder is not maintainable. If such a procedure is introduced, then it would not only encourage the accused persons to seek this kind of permissions to avoid their personal presence before the trial Courts or any other Court, as required by law but would also put extra burden upon the Courts and it may further cause delay in conclusion of the criminal proceedings, thereby defeating the aim and object of the penal laws.

15.

This Court is cognizant of the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C and in numerous judicial pronouncements, it has been held by various High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the inherent powers are to be used sparingly and with circumspection and cannot be exercised in a routine manner, much less for the convenience of the accused. For the sake of arguments, even if it is assumed that in a given case such a permission needs to be given to the accused, in that eventuality also the conduct of the accused applicant would acquire

CRMM71892023(O&M) #9# 2023:PHHC:136048 importance, and this Court is of the opinion that a proclaimed offender who failed to associate with the trial proceedings despite knowledge is not entitled to invoke the inherent powers of this Court to seek quashing of criminal proceedings. 0 - %

# # # D 0'42 :Samantha Christina Delfina Willis & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.Writ Petitin No.246022021 Decided on 01.06.2022 C!

) C # Amrinder Singh v. State Of NCT Of Delhi Crl.M.C.1571 of2021 decided on 04012022 $A $ ,$

+ 5 D$ .-, 1 = E + , (

E) 5 C # E$9

ET.C.Mathai And Another v. The District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram AIR 1999 SC 1385% > F0 #

G$++ $ .

# + # #

1+$ # . Amit Ahuja v. Gian Parkash Bhambri, 2010 (3) RCR (Criminal) 586:

>7 F6 % % %

% % #% # % # # % % % 1 = + %

% '

# % ## %

% % % %

% '

# %

% #% # # % % # % % %

< # 9 % #

% E # % %

9 % %

% #% % % % #% %9

% % %$# $ "% % # %

CRMM71892023(O&M) #10# 2023:PHHC:136048 % # %

% # ## % #%

# #%

% # % %

% ## %

% # % % %

# "

#% %

#% % 1 = + %

% # E

% # # F F T.C. Mathai and another v. The District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala% B%

>7 FB1 + $ $ '

7 7 ,

# 7 7 # #

# ( ## 1 !B

# ( F %# #

F 1 ./

% &

7 7 1 #

F 6

1+$ # # -G( B. ! $ .

# + '

5 - B !! 7 # /

# +

1+$ %

# ($!60 ! %# % % # % '

% -G( B. ! # $ 3 4 F 3H# 4

)

1 + $ # % # $ .

# 5 - # 11.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana in

"# "

! !

" again

CRMM71892023(O&M) #11# 2023:PHHC:136048 considering the fact whether the power of attorney holder could maintain the petition holds as follows:

"6. During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned counsel that the petitioner is still residing abroad and the petition has been "led through his mother, namely, Sukhwinder Kaur (Special power of attorney).

7. When confronted with the maintainability of the petition, learned counsel has submitted that since the mother of the petitioner was also an accused, therefore, she is competent to represent him as his special power of attorney to pursue his case relating to the same FIR.

13. Though the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not brought to the notice of this Court in Mangal Dass Gautam's case (supra), however, the above view was further followed by Bombay High Court in '$ %&&

& '% !!

()*($ +*,)", and by Kerala High Court in " -

.+".

14. At this juncture, the analysis of the facts of this case reveal that the petitioner voluntarily disengaged himself with the trial proceedings, who left the country without seeking any permission from the trial Court, therefore, this petition "led through the Special power of attorney holder is not maintainable. If such a procedure is introduced, then it would not only encourage the accused persons to seek this kind of permissions to avoid their personal presence before the trial Courts or any other Court, as required by law but would also put extra burden upon the Courts and it may further cause delay in conclusion of the criminal proceedings, thereby defeating the aim and object of the penal laws." (Emphasis supplied)

+ " '

% #

# # # % # %

# 0'42 :+ 4 Naveed Akthar Sait v. State Of Kerala 2016 SCC Online HER 13587 )

* ) 0

) 4

* )* * )2 0 % #

M. Krishnammal v. T. Balasubramania

CRMM71892023(O&M) #12# 2023:PHHC:136048 Pillai AIR 1937 Madras 937%

(

.! # $ %

> F$ "

# % %

F . #

9 #

T.C Mathai v. District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram [(1999) 3 SCC 614]% $9

%> F

& # %

#FF # %

# #

# 7

# # F % # #

# $ $ #

, # %

# % #

% %

# #

F $ 7'

# $9

($$ 3 4% $9

> FB1 + $ $ '

7 7 ,

# 7 7

CRMM71892023(O&M) #13# 2023:PHHC:136048 # #

# ( ## 1 !B

# ( F %# #

F 1 ./

% &

7 7 1 #

F 3H# 4 13.

On a coalesce of the judgments so rendered by the Constitutional Courts, what can be unmistakably gathered is that the power of attorney holder of an accused cannot maintain a petition be it under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, I hold that the present petition filed by the power of attorney holder of the accused, without seeking any permission at the hands of this Court, and without even narrating in the petition that he is personally aware of the facts of the case, the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is per se not maintainable, as the accused cannot be represented by a power of attorney holder and thus, maintain the subject petition.? 1 24)

4 4 $ 0*

4 4 ) *4 4

4@ 3 45- ) ) 4 44 ' * )*4 4 *

4 )* 4 )

CRMM71892023(O&M) #14# 2023:PHHC:136048

= )4 $ 4 * 0

( *) )*

)4( 2 * ) )* & - )- 3 5- ) $ 3

7 $

4)* 4 *)

$ "3!06

* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No