Balvir Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 374 dated 16.11.2007 registered at Police Station Bagha Purana, District Moga under Sections 494, 420 IPC along with all subsequent proceedings.

Counsel for the Petitioner has stated that a bare perusal of the FIR reveals that only an offence of bigamy has been committed and, therefore, the Petitioner cannot be tried for non cognizable offence but only a complaint could be filed by the complainant. There is a merit in the contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that for offence u/s 494 IPC, only aggrieved wife has a remedy as envisaged u/s 198(c) Code of Criminal Procedure.

This Court normally would have examined this proposition of law but counsel for the Respondents has stated that in the present FIR, apart from offence of bigamy, offence u/s 420 IPC has also been committed. Counsel for the Respondents has relied upon State of Orissa v. Sharat Chandra Sahu reported in, AIR 1997 SC 1 to state that where the report lodged with the police disclosed cognizable and non-cognizable offences, police can investigate both the offences.

Counsel for the Petitioner has stated that in the present case registered against the Petitioner for offence under Sections 494 and 420 IPC, after framing of the charge, evidence of the prosecution has commenced and one witness has been examined. This Court has taken a consistent view that when the trial has commenced and the witnesses have been examined, the trial must culminate into conviction or acquittal and provisions of Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked. Having observed so, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the Petitioner that FIR could not be registered. This argument is kept open to be raised by the Petitioner before the trial Court where the trial is going on. Furtheremore, from the evidence led by the prosecution, the Court shall also examine whether the offence of cheating is made out or not. Considering the fact that the FIR was registered in the year 2007 and a period of 3 years has passed, personal appearance of the Petitioner is exempted subject to his furnishing an undertaking that he shall cause appearance as and when required by the trial Court. He shall also file an undertaking that the evidence, if any, recorded in his absence but in the presence of his counsel, shall be binding upon him. The trial Court may also incorporate any other condition in the undertaking to be submitted by him.

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of.