Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmeet Singh Alias Gopi ( vs The State Of Punjab ( on 8 May, 2013
CRM No.M 23156 OF 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc No.M 23156 of 2012
Date of decision : 08.05.2013
Gurmeet Singh alias Gopi ( Petitioner )
Versus
The State of Punjab ( Respondent )
Present : Shri S.K. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner;
Shri Luvinder Sofat, DAG, Punjab.
****
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral).
Petitioner Gurmeet Singh @ Gopi has filed this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No.32 dated 08.02.2012, under sections 379, 411 and 420 IPC, P.S.City Ferozepur, District Ferozepur, Punjab.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an FIR number 170 of 2008 was registered on 10.09.2008, under section 379 IPC, at Police Station Chitranjan Park District South East New Delhi, on the complaint of one Ajay Nagrath regarding the theft of his car No.PB-10-BQ-0999. Another FIR, for which the quashing is sought, was registered at Ferozepur, against the Petitioner for allegedly retaining the stolen property. He argued that both the cases cannot be tried at different two places. The subsequent FIR registered at Ferozepur is an abuse of process of law. The learned counsel referred to sections 179, 181 and 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He also sites Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P and another 2013(1) RCR(Criminal) Page 686.
CRM No.M 23156 OF 2012 2
3. On the other hand the learned State counsel argued that the FIR was registered at Delhi, regarding the theft of the car. He further submits that petitioner Gurmeet Singh @ Gopi was apprehended by the Police while having in possession of stolen vehicle "Pajaro" bearing No.11-AD-5560, which was later on found to be carrying a fictitious number during investigation. Case FIR No.32 dated 08.02.2012, was initially registered against him under section 379/411 IPC, subsequently when registration number of the said vehicle was found to be fictitious, Challan against the accused/ petitioner was presented in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, on 04.07.2012. As the case is already under trial, so the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition and the present petition of the petitioner may be dismissed.
4. This Court has heard the arguments at length and carefully gone through the paper book.
5. Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is reproduced hereunder:-
"When an act if an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued."
6. Section 181 of the Code is reproduced hereunder:-
"181. Place of trial in case of certain offences.
(1) xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx CRM No.M 23156 OF 2012 3 (3) Any offence of theft, extortion or robbery may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property which is the subject of the offence was possessed by any person committing it or by any person who received or retained such property knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property. (4) xxx xxx xxx (5) Any offence which includes the possession of stolen property may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property was possessed by any person who received or retained it knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property."
7. Section 220 of the Code is reproduced hereunder:-
"220. Trial for more than one offence.
(1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) If the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each of such offences. (4) If several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute when combined a different offence, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for the offence constituted by such acts when combined, and for any offence constituted by any one, or more, of such acts.CRM No.M 23156 OF 2012 4
(5) Nothing contained in this section shall affect section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 )."
8. In this case, the petitioner was arrested on 08.02.2012, by the Ferozepur police with stolen vehicle having the fictitious number. On interrogation it was revealed that the car was stolen from New Delhi. An Intimation was sent by the Punjab Police to the Delhi police. The petitioner was arrested on 15.02.2012 by the Delhi Police in case FIR No.170/2008 under section 379 of IPC, registered at P.S.Chitranjan Park, New Delhi. The second case registered by Punjab Police at Police Station City Ferozepur is with regard to the offences allegedly committed by the Petitioner under section 379, 411 and 420 of the IPC. Both the offences are distinct offences. The petitioner has not disclosed as to whether in the case at New Delhi, charge has been framed or not. Section 379 and section 411, 420 of the IPC are two distinct offences, one for stealing the property and the other for knowingly retaining the stolen property and using a fictitious registration number of the car. In both the offences, the ingredients are different and cause of action, accrued at two different places. Similarly, section 420 IPC is triable either at the place where the act was committed or the offence was completed i.e. at Ferozepur. No doubt, section 181(5) of the Code appears to give jurisdiction to Ferozepur Courts, where the stolen property was found in possession of either of a thief or of any receiver thereof ,knowing that it is stolen property, regarding theft of the vehicle committed at Delhi. The contention of the Ld.Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may either be prosecuted at Delhi or at Ferozepur has some force in view of the above provisions, but choice is of Delhi police, where the first case was registered. The subsequent criminal case cannot be quashed only on this ground alone. CRM No.M 23156 OF 2012 5
9. The case law cited by the Ld.Counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts. The Petitioner is not being tried for the same offences at two different places. The offences for which the petitioner is being tried at different places are different and distinct and thus both cases can be tried at different places.
10. The provision of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to be used sparingly. In this case, this Court feels that it is not a fit case where the court should exercise its power under the inherent jurisdiction. This petition is bound to fail on another ground that this court cannot direct the Delhi police to try the petitioner under sections 411, 420 IPC at Delhi, while offence was allegedly committed at Ferozepur. This Court cannot transfer the Ferozepur trial to Delhi to be tried and clubbed together with the main theft case or vice versa. This petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
11. However, it is made clear that the petitioner may seek his appropriate remedy if he is tried for the same offences by the two courts.
08.05.2013 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Brij JUDGE