'Proclaimed Offender Cannot Short Circuit System By Filing Petitions Through Power Of Attorney', Punjab & Haryana HC Refuses To Quash FIR On Basis Of Compromise

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that a proclaimed offender cannot seek quashing of the FIR on the basis of a compromise by filing petition through Power of Attorney.

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi said, "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."

The Court further added that (Proclaimed Offender) 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."

These observations were made while hearing the plea filed through Special Power of Attorney, under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of FIR lodged in 2014  for committing fraud under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 409, 477-A IPC. 

It was alleged that the petitioners have siphoned off over hundred crores of rupees and fled to USA.

The petitioners submitted that compromise has been effected between the parties in terms of which a sum of Rs.5 Crore has been paid to the complainant and, therefore, the FIR and all the proceedings emanating therefrom were required to be quashed.

On the other hand, the State Counsel contended that the petitioners are serial offenders and have multiple cases registered against them in some of which they have been declared proclaimed offenders.

Considering the submission the Court referred to various Supreme Court and High Courts' decisions, on whether an accused, who is absconding can file a petition through power of attorney. 

Reliance was placed upon Apex Court's judgement in Virender Prasad Singh Vs. Rajesh Bhardwaj & Ors. [2010(4) RCR(Criminal) 93] in which it was observed that, "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 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."

It further referred to Punjab & Haryana High Court's Division Bench ruling in Mangal Dass Gautam Vs. State of Haryana, [2020 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 382,]  wherein it examined the issue and held that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is an exception to general rule of criminal law and any such petition filed by accused through power of attorney must contain special reasons. It was further held that the maintainability of such petition would certainly be dependant upon various factors including facts and circumstances of that particular case to be decided by the said Court.

The Court also highlighted its decision in Sarabjit Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others [CRM-M No.26957 of 2021] , in which the Court answered the question whether the accused/respondent abroad can file a petition through the power of attorney holder. The High Court opined, "if such a practice is permitted, it would become easy for the accused to run away from the country and avoid appearance before the Court thereby resulting in gross delay in the proceedings."

The Court also referred to Kerala High Court's decision in Naveed Akthar Sait v. State Of Kerala [2016 SCC Online HER 1358], in which the Court held, "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.”

Justice Bedi noted a serious allegation have been levelled particulary against the first petitioner for siphoning off crores of rupees and fleeing to USA.

Adding that no such situation exists enabling petitioner nos.1 to 4 to file the instant petition through Powers of Attorney, the Court said, that 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."

In the light of the above, the Court opined, "...in cases of the present kind, the ends of justice would only be served by the accused submitting to the jurisdiction of the Courts after which they would be at liberty to avail their remedies in accordance with law."

Consequently, the Court held there is no reason to quash the FIR on the basis of a compromise.

Appearance: Vikram Anand, Advocate for the Petitioner no.1.

S.S. Narula, Advocate with G.S. Dhillon, Advocate for Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 & 9.

 H.S. Sitta, DAG Punjab.

 Akshay Jain, Advocate for the respondent-SBI.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 214

Title: Sukhwinder Singh through his SPA & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Click here to read/download the order