A Deliberate Attempt to Mislead This Court Necessitates Stringent Measures: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fines Petitioner Rs. 50,000 for Misleading Court
In a recent judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed a petition to quash an FIR against Supinder Singh alias Soni, who is accused of molestation and threats. Justice Sumeet Goel emphasized the importance of the trial court in evaluating evidence, especially when substantial prosecution evidence has already been recorded. Additionally, the petitioner was fined for providing misleading information about a previous petition.
Facts of the Case: The case involves FIR No. 0048 dated 25.06.2022, registered under Sections 452, 354 IPC, and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The FIR was later amended to include Sections 354-A and 195-A IPC. The allegations were made by a 15-year-old girl, Kajal, who claimed that Hardeep Singh alias Deepi entered her room and attempted to molest her, offering money in exchange for inappropriate acts. Kajal’s statement was supported by her grandmother, despite initial hesitations due to societal shame. Supinder Singh alias Soni was later implicated for threatening Kajal’s uncle to force a compromise in the case.
Scope and Ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C.: The court delved into the nature and scope of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), 1973. Justice Goel noted, “Inherent powers are those essential for the court to ensure justice and prevent abuse of the legal process.” The judgment emphasized that these powers should be exercised sparingly, especially when a significant part of the prosecution’s evidence has already been recorded.
Evaluation of Prosecution Evidence: Justice Goel asserted that evaluating the sufficiency and reliability of evidence is primarily the domain of the trial court. “The High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should refrain from conducting a mini-trial,” he stated, referring to precedents that restrict the High Court from appreciating evidence in such petitions.
Misleading Information and Costs Imposed: The petitioner had previously filed a quashing petition that was dismissed for non-prosecution. In the current petition, it was misleadingly claimed that the prior petition was withdrawn with liberty to refile. This attempt to mislead the court led to the imposition of costs. “A deliberate attempt to mislead this Court necessitates stringent measures,” Justice Goel remarked, imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner.
The court highlighted several precedents to underscore the limited circumstances under which it can quash an FIR post-substantial evidence recording. It cited the Supreme Court’s stance that inherent powers should be used to prevent injustice but must not be exercised lightly, particularly when evidence evaluation is pending before a trial court.
Justice Sumeet Goel remarked, “The inherent powers of a High Court are unbridled, unfettered, and plenary in nature. However, the exercise of such powers requires self-restraint.” He added, “No compelling or accentuating facts have been brought forward to persuade this Court to hold that the continuation of trial proceedings constitutes an abuse of the process of law.”
The dismissal of the petition underscores the judiciary’s commitment to allowing trial courts to perform their role in evidence evaluation. The imposition of costs highlights the court’s intolerance for misleading information and procedural abuse. This judgment reinforces the principle that inherent powers must be exercised judiciously and sparingly, ensuring that the trial process is not prematurely curtailed.
Date of Decision: 23rd May 2024
Supinder Singh alias Soni vs. State of Punjab and Another
