WITHOUT COMING BACK TO INDIA, NRIs CAN GET THEIR FIR as well as PO PO ORDER QUASHED FROM THE HIGH COURT

Facts of the case:

Complainant got an FIR registered against petitioner / Pardeep Kaur with the allegations that the complainant had a son namely Satnam Singh, who was married to the present petitioner – Pardeep Kaur. Satnam Singh died on 19.01.2001 and thereafter, the relation between the complainant and the petitioner became strained, on account of inheritance of his property. It is also stated in the FIR that the petitioner forged and fabricated the Will dated 21.02.1998 regarding some property of the deceased – Satnam Singh. The FIR has been registered on the ground that the petitioner along with co-accused have committed the offence of cheating and forgery as the Will is stated to be a forged and fabricated one as it ousted the right of the complainant.

Counsels for the Petitioner argued that the petitioner has been residing abroad much before the registration of the FIR and even the complainant has been and is still residing abroad as it is evident from the FIR itself that she is prosecuting this case through her attorney Parkash Kaur. Counsels for the petitioner have, thus, submitted that summons issued in the present matter were served on petitioner’s Indian address rather than her UK address and in the absence of a proper valid and legal service on the petitioner on her given address, the declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed offender is not in accordance with the provisions of Sections 82/83 read with Section 105-A of Cr.P.C., as no substitute service was effected on the petitioner, who is admittedly residing abroad.

Counsels for the petitioner further submitted that the complainant has lead the best possible evidence available with her, on the basis of which the other co-accused have already been acquitted by the trial Court especially in view of the fact that the Will has never been produced before the trial Court and even before the Civil Court, the original Will was never produced and, therefore, no purpose will be served if the petitioner is directed to face afresh trial as no new evidence can be brought on record and the prosecution of the petitioner, if any, would amount of abuse and misuse of process of law.

Counsels for the petitioner relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court “Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal vs State of Punjab”, 2011(2) RCR (Criminal) 453, wherein it has been held that even in case of proclaimed offender if the prosecution of the other accused has resulted into acquittal, no purpose will be served in directing the person, who is declared as proclaimed offender to face the trial if the chances of conviction are bleak.

Hon’ble High Court Of Punjab & Haryana held that

After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find merit in the present petition considering the findings recorded by both the Courts below that in the absence of the original Will on record, no offence is made out, in my opinion even if the petitioner is directed to face the trial afresh, no purpose will be served in directing her to face the prosecution in view of the Sudo Mandal’s case (supra). Accordingly, this petition is allowed, the order dated 24.05.2004, vide which the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender is set-aside and the impugned FIR No.55 dated 26.03.2003 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station Division No.4, District Jalandhar and challan dated 23.10.2006 (Annexure P-2) all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed.