"Only Restriction Upon Exercise Of Such Powers Is Self Restraint": Punjab & Haryana HC Delves Into Scope & Ambit Of Power U/S 482 CrPC

While delving into the scope and ambit of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that the only restriction upon exercise of such powers is self restraint.

"The powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 are unbridled, unfettered, and plenary in nature. The only restriction upon exercise of such powers is self restraint," the Court ruled. 

The Court made the observation while imposing a cost of Rs. 50,000 on a petitioner for failing to disclose in their plea that a similar petition had been dismissed for "non-prosecution." The petitioner had filed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR, but during the proceedings, it came to light that a previous petition filed by the same petitioner for the same relief had been dismissed for non-prosecution. However, the dismissal order was not included with the present petition.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel, while observing that such actions amounted to "misleading the court," emphasized the need to curb such attempts with severity.

The Court suggested, "The inevitable conclusion that emerges is that, where substantial/material prosecution evidence has been led even during pendency of a quashing petition before the High Court, it would be bounden upon the High Court to consider the aspect of such a petition having become unentertainable in view of this aspect of the matter. This Court must hasten to add a word of caution herein viz.; a quashing petition already pending adjudication before High Court, ought not to become unentertainable nay non-maintainable only on account of chargesheet/challan (report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., 1973) or framing of charges by trial Court during pendency of such a petition."

The Court also stated that a plea filed for quashing of an FIR (as also the proceedings emanating therefrom) filed before the High Court does not ipso facto become barred or non-maintainable in a case where substantial/material prosecution witnesses have already been examined. "In such a scenario, the High Court ought to exercise a high degree of circumspection and caution while dealing with such a plea since it would essentially involve adjudication upon the relevance, veracity & sufficiency of prosecution evidence brought on record during trial proceedings which ordinarily ought to be best left to be considered by the trial Court. Ergo, accentuating facts/circumstances ought to exist for exercise of such power by the High Court," it said. 

The Bench added, "It is neither conceivable nor desirable to even venture to lay-down any exhaustive set of guideline(s) in this regard, however alluring this aspect may be. Such exercise of inherent powers ought to be best left to the discretion of the Court which is in seisen of the matter, as every case is sui generis in nature."

The petitioner, accused of committing sexual assault on a minor girl, had filed the quashing petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, facing charges under various sections, including Sections 354-A and 195-A of the IPC and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, (Amended), 2012.

The Court noted that the petitioner had falsely stated in the present petition that no similar plea had been filed before, despite the dismissal of a previous petition for non-prosecution. Additionally, the previous dismissal order was not attached to the present petition.

"The petitioner had earlier preferred a petition before this Court for quashing of an FIR, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 01.04.2024. The present petition has been filed on or about 17.05.2024. In the instant petition it has been averred, in para No.16, “That the Petitioner has not filed any such or similar petition for grant of Quashing before this Hon’ble Court or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India except CRM-M-51043 of 2022 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh one with better particulars," the Court said. 

The Bench remarked, "The inevitable conclusion, thus, is that a deliberate attempt has been made to mislead this Court. Such surreptitious attempt(s) need to be, indubitably, curbed with an iron hand. Ergo; the petitioner deserves to be saddled with costs, which ought to be veritable and real time in nature."

Consequently, the Court imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner. The order directed the Trial Court to remit the amount to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Mohali. In case of non-compliance, the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala was instructed to recover the costs from the petitioner through lawful means, including as arrears of land revenue. The recovered amount would then be submitted to the trial court for further remittance to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Mohali.

"The petitioner is saddled with costs of Rs.50,000/- which shall be deposited by him with trial Court within eight weeks from today. In case such costs are deposited; the trial Court shall have the same remitted to Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Mohali. In case the said costs are not deposited by the petitioner as directed for; the trial Court shall intimate the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala who accordingly shall have such costs recovered from the petitioner by all available lawful means, including as arrears of land revenue and upon realization thereof, the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala shall have the same submitted to the trial Court, for further remittance thereof to the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Mohali. A compliance report be sent by the trial Court as also Deputy Commissioner, Patiala to this Court accordingly," the Court said in its Order dated May 23. 

Cause Title: Supinder Singh alias Soni v. State of Punjab and Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:079327]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocate Prabhjot Singh

Click here to read/download the Order