Criminal Misc. No. M-8801 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-8801 of 2010 Date of Decision: 06.05.2010 1. Jatinder Singh son of Sh. Lakhvir Singh; 2. Saravjit Singh son of Sh. Lakhvir Singh; both residents of village Sataur, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, now residents of Post Box No. 13073, Dahid Sharjha, UAE, through their Special Attorney Tirath Singh son of Baldev Singh, resident of village Sataur, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur. ... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Punjab. 2. Jaswinder Singh son of Rattan Singh, resident of village Khankhli, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No. 1 – State. Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate, for the complainant/respondent No. 2. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing FIR No. 108 dated 29.04.08, under Sections 148 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC (Section 326 IPC, added later on), P.S. Sadar, Criminal Misc. No. M-8801 of 2010 2 Hoshiarpur (Annexure P1), on the basis of compromise dated 05.05.08 (Annexure P2), has been filed by Jatinder Singh, and, Saravjit Singh sons of Sh. Lakhvir Singh, residents of village Sataur, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, now residents of Post Box No. 13073, Dahid Sharjha, UAE, through their Special Attorney Tirath Singh son of Baldev Singh, resident of village Sataur, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 21.04.08, at about 3.30 PM, Jaswinder Singh, complainant alongwith Ranjit Singh and Gurpreet Singh sons of Paramjit Singh, was coming, from the Courts, to village Sataur, on his motorcycle. When they took a turn towards village Sataur, a Tata Safari, bearing registration No. PB-07Q-9323, came from behind and stopped, in front of their motorcycle, wherefrom, two boys, namely Amritpal alias Khang son of Surinder Singh, and, Jaspreet Singh son of Tirath Singh, Panch, residents of Sataur, armed with datar and kirpan respectively, came out. Jaspreet Singh alias Jug, gave a datar blow, on the person of Ranjit Singh, which hit his right leg. Jaswinder Singh, and, Gurpreet Singh, ran away, from the spot out of fear. It was stated that, when Jaswinder Singh and Gurpreet Singh, were running away, Jiwan Singh son of Santokh Singh, and, Gurpreet Singh alias Minta son of Jaswinder Singh, residents of Sataur, hit them with the side of their bullet motorcycle. Thereafter, Jaswinder Singh, started running towards the fields, after crossing the wall alongside the road, and, when he reached, on the link road, the aforesaid persons stopped their vehicle, Criminal Misc. No. M-8801 of 2010 3 in front of him. In the meanwhile, Raja son of Onkar Singh, resident of new Bassi, armed with a rod, and, Sonu son of Balbir Singh, resident of new Bagpur, armed with a rod, came out of the aforesaid car. Thereafter, Raja, gave a rod blow, on the person of Jaswinder Singh, which hit his left arm. Jatinder Singh alias Rinki, and, Saravjit Singh alias Sabi sons of Lakhwinder Singh, residents of Sataur, armed with kirpans, too came out of the Tata Safari. Jatinder Singh alias Rinki, gave a kirpan blow, on the person of Jaswinder Singh, while he was lying down, hitting his left foot. Saravjit Singh alias Sabi, also gave a kirpan blow, on the right foot of Jaswinder Singh. It was further stated that, there were about 3-4 unknown persons with the assailants. It was further stated that, the alarm, raised by Jaswinder Singh, attracted Harpreet Singh @ Happy, to the spot. On seeing Harpreet Singh @ Happy, coming to the spot, all the assailants fled away, from the spot, alongwith their respective weapons. Thereafter, Happy and Baba Singh alias Manjit Singh, uncle of Jaswinder Singh, took him, to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, where, he got medical treatment. It was further stated that, the main reason, behind the aforesaid occurrence, was that, about a year ago, Jaswinder Singh and the members of his party, had a fight, with the aforesaid assailants, which resulted into lodging of an FIR, against the latter, but, the matter was got compromised. Ultimately, the aforesaid FIR, was got registered. 3. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. Criminal Misc. No. M-8801 of 2010 4 4. The Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that admittedly, the petitioners, who are accused, in the aforesaid FIR, are residing, in Dubai. He further submitted that, in Section 482 Cr.P.C., there is no reference to 'person aggrieved'. He further submitted that, if there is abuse of the process of Court, a person, genuinely interested, in the accused, can file a petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that, since the FIR, is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court, Tirath Singh, attorney of the petitioners, being genuinely interested, in the matter, had locus-standi, and the petition, could be filed, through him, by the petitioners. He further submitted that, even the parties, have arrived at a compromise, which is Annexure P2. He further submitted that, as per the compromise, now there remains, no dispute, between the parties. He further submitted that, with a view to prevent the abuse of process of Court, and, in the interest of justice, the FIR, referred to above, and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, be quashed. 5. On the other hand, the Counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 2, also submitted that, the compromise (Annexure P2), has already been arrived at, between the parties, and, now no dispute, subsists between them. He also submitted the affidavits of Jaswinder Singh, complainant, and, Ranjit Singh, in token of correctness of the compromise (Annexure P2). He further submitted that, on the basis of the compromise, referred to above, the FIR and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, be quashed, so as to prevent the abuse of the process of Court; Criminal Misc. No. M-8801 of 2010 5 harassment to the parties; and create better relations between them. 6. The Counsel for the State, however, submitted that, petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioners, through their attorney, is not maintainable. He also repudiated the remaining submissions, made by the Counsel for the petitioners. 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, being not maintainable, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. Admittedly, the aforesaid FIR, was registered, against the petitioners and their co-petitioners (non-applicants), in Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur (India). There is, no dispute, about the factum, that the petitioners, are residing, in Dubai. In Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chaudhary and others, JT 1991 (3), SC, 497, it was held, as under:- “Even if there are million questions of law to be deeply gone into and examined in a criminal case registered against specific accused persons, it is for them and they alone to raise all such questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at the appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of public interest litigants. It was further held that the petitioner in that case (H.S. Chaudhary) had no locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the FIR and all other proceedings arising therefrom on the plea of preventing the abuse of process of the Court. In the above mentioned case the accused persons where alive and were capable of defending themselves and protecting their interests and it was also not shown that the petitioner Mr. H.S. Chaudhary had any particular or Criminal Misc. No. M-8801 of 2010 6 special interest in the accused persons.” 8. In Simranjit Singh Mann Vs. Union of India and another, AIR, 1993, SC, 280, the Apex Court, held, as under :- “Ordinarily the aggrieved party which is affected by any order has the right to seek redress by questioning the legal validity or correctness of the order, unless such party is a minor, an insane person or is suffering from any other disability which in law recognized as sufficient to permit any other person e.g. next friend, to move the Court on his behalf. It was also held that if a guardian or a next friend initiates proceedings for and, on behalf of such a disabled aggrieved party, it is, in effect, proceedings initiated by the party aggrieved and not by a total stranger, who has no direct personal stake, in the outcome thereof. In the above mentioned case, a leader of a political party approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging the conviction and sentence of the assassins of Gen. Vaidya. The two convicts were alive but did not file any appeal against the conviction and sentence. The Apex Court, held that the petitioner, in that case, had no locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.” 9. The plain reading of the ratio of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, clearly goes to reveal, that it is only the accused persons, 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 FIR, and the subsequent proceedings, and no third person, can fight a proxy war, on their behalf, under the garb of public interest litigant. The aggrieved party, which is affected by an order, is required to seek Criminal Misc. No. M-8801 of 2010 7 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, 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, 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 the petitioners, are suffering from any disability, recognized by the provisions of law. They are accused, in the aforesaid FIR. It is they, who are aggrieved, against the FIR. It is they, who can challenge the same, on any ground, which may be available to them, under the provisions of law. If, in criminal cases, until and unless, the persons aggrieved, suffer from some disability, recognized by law, a stranger or some other person, is allowed, to fight the proxy war, then the very purpose of criminal justice system, shall be defeated. In that 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 petitioners, through their attorney, is not maintainable. On this ground alone, the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. The Counsel for the petitioners, however, placed reliance Criminal Misc. No. M-8801 of 2010 8 on Ravi Gupta Vs. R.C. Tiwari, 2008(6), A.D. (Delhi), 655, Gurmit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and another, Criminal Misc. No. 13472-M of 2000, decided, on 06.09.02, by this Court, and, Kuldip Kaur @ Joginder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, Criminal Misc. No. 28203-M of 2004, decided, on 03.04.06, by this Court, in support of his contention that the petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is maintainable by the accused through attorney. In Ravi Gupta's case (supra), the question, that fell for consideration, was, as to whether, a complaint, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, could be filed, by the complainant, through a power of attorney. The Delhi High Court, held that, the complaint, could be filed, through a power of attorney, after obtaining the leave of the Court, for pursuing the same, through the said attorney. In Gurmit Kaur's case (supra), no doubt, a single Bench of this Court, held that, a petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the criminal proceedings, could be filed, through an attorney. Reliance therein, was placed, on Ravulu Subha Rao and others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, 1956 (SC), 604. The careful perusal of the facts of Ravulu Subha Rao and others' case (supra), clearly goes, to show, that the question, before their Lordships of the Apex Court, that fell for determination, was with regard to the interpretation of Section 2 of the Power of Attorneys Act. In Ravulu Subha Rao and others' case (supra), no question, fell for decision, before the Apex Court, as to whether, the accused/petitioner, could file a petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the criminal proceedings, Criminal Misc. No. M-8801 of 2010 9 through attorney. Not only this, even the co-accused of Gurmit Kaur, accused/petitioner, in Gurmit Kaur's case (supra), had already been acquitted, by the trial Court. This Court, taking into consideration, the factum, that the evidence, against Gurmit Kaur, accused/petitioner, was the same, as was against her co-accused, who were acquitted, after trial, no useful purpose, shall be served, by keeping the criminal proceedings alive, and, as such, the same were quashed. In Kuldip Kaur @ Joginder Kaur's case (supra), no question, fell for decision, before a single Bench of this Court, as to whether, a petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., could be filed, by an accused/petitioner, through an attorney. However, the Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, in Kuldip Kaur @ Joginder Kaur's case (supra), submitted that the petitioner, was ready to return, to India, and face prosecution. It was, under these circumstances, that this Court, in Kuldip Kaur @ Joginder Kaur's case (supra), directed that, on the appearance of the petitioner, in the Court, within the stipulated time, she shall be admitted to bail, on furnishing the bail bond and the surety bond. In none of the aforesaid cases, relied upon, by the Counsel for the petitioners, any invariable principle of law, was laid down, that a petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the criminal proceedings, could be filed, through an attorney. These cases were decided, on the peculiar facts and circumstances, prevailing therein. No help, therefore, can be drawn, by the Counsel for the petitioners, from the aforesaid cases. Even otherwise, in view of the principle of law, laid down, in Janata Criminal Misc. No. M-8801 of 2010 10 Dal's, and, Simranjit Singh Mann's cases (supra), decided, by the Apex Court, any principle of law, to the contrary, if at all, laid down, in the cases, relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioners, shall not hold the field. In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the petitioners, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 11. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-8801 of 2010, being not maintainable, through attorney stands dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 12. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned, immediately. 06.05.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE