IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.29957-M of 2008 Date of Decision:21.2.2011 Jaswinder Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of FIR No.268 dated 13.11.2003 registered under Sections 420, 498-A IPC at Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana. Case file shows that on 15.11.2010, no one was present on behalf of the petitioners and the following order was passed: “ Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that the petitioners are proclaimed offenders. Case file shows that the matter is being adjourned on one pretext or other. Today also, no one is present on behalf of either of the parties. In the interest of justice, adjourned to 21.2.2011. However, it is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted and the matter shall be finally argued on the next date of hearing.” In spite of the above direction, again no one is present today. The present petition is pending since 2008. It is also pointed out that the Crl. M. No.29957-M of 2008 -2- petitioners are proclaimed offenders. It is also pointed out that the present petition was filed through attorney. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Amit Ahuja v. Gian Parkash Bhambri 2010(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 586 wherein it is specifically held that the petition filed through attorney is not maintainable. Para 9 of the same reads as under: “ 9.The plaint reading of the ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, clearly goes to reveal that it is only the accused person, against whom a criminal case has been registered or a criminal complaint, has been filed, can file a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High Court, for quashing the complaint, the summoning order, and the subsequent proceedings, and no third person can fight a proxy war on his behalf under the garb of public interest litigant. The aggrieved party, which is affected by an order, is required to seek redress of its grievance, by questioning the legal validity or correctness of the same. It is another thing, if the aggrieved party, is suffering from some disability i.e. unless such party is a minor, or an insane person, or is suffering from any other disability, which, in law, is recognized as sufficient to permit any other person e.g. next friend, to move the Court, on his behalf. On behalf of minor, or insane person, a guardian or a next friend, initiates proceedings, so as to challenge the legality and validity of the order, passed against him, to seek redressal of the grievance, as under law such a person having disability, Crl. M. No.29957-M of 2008 -3- cannot be said to be competent, to file a petition, except through next friend or guardian. In the instant case, there is nothing on the record, that Amit Ahuja, petitioner, is suffering from any disability, recognized by the provisions of law. He is an accused, in the aforesaid complaint. It is he, who is aggrieved against the complaint and the summoning order. It is he, who can challenge the same, on any ground which may be available to him, under the provisions of law. If, in criminal cases, until and unless a person, is allowed to fight the proxy war, then the very purpose of criminal justice system, shall be defeated. In the event, the Courts, would be mushroomed, by public interest litigants. In this view of the matter, the present petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner, through his attorney, is not maintainable. On this ground alone, the same is liable to be dismissed.” Moreover, the petitioners have been declared proclaimed offenders by the trial Court. Even the present petition has been filed through attorney. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed being not maintainable. 21.2.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE