2022 (1) TMI 1421 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of petition - petition filed through S.P.A. holder - admissible evidences or not - HELD THAT - In the instant case as well the petition has been filed through SPA holder which is per se not maintainable. Therefore no permission can be granted to the petitioner to file the present petition bearing No. CRL.M.C. 1571/2021 under article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 258/2010 and the charge-sheet and all the proceedings arising therefrom including the proceedings initiated against the petitioner u/s 82/83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure through his SPA holder. There are no ground to accept the prayer made in the present application the same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Permission to file petition for quashing FIR and charge-sheet through SPA holder.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought permission to file a petition for quashing FIR and charge-sheet through his SPA holder. The petitioner argued that he was not named in the FIR, lacked admissible evidence against him, and was made an accused based solely on a co-accused's disclosure statement. The petitioner's counsel contended that the petitioner was not involved in the travel agency business but was a businessman and director of an NRI company. The counsel also challenged the legality of declaring the petitioner as an absconder without due process.

The State, represented by the Ld. APP, opposed the petition stating that there were allegations against the petitioner and previous instances of him being declared as an absconder. The State highlighted that despite previous legal proceedings being dropped, the petitioner failed to appear before the trial court, leading to a subsequent declaration of absconding.

The Ld. APP argued vehemently that the petition filed through the SPA holder was not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that only the accused person directly involved in the case could file a petition for quashing proceedings. The court referred to cases where the appearance of the accused through a power of attorney holder was not permissible under the law.

Based on the arguments presented, the court dismissed the application seeking permission to file the petition through the SPA holder for quashing the FIR and charge-sheet. The court held that the petition filed through the SPA holder was not maintainable, leading to the dismissal of both the application and the petition seeking quashing. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.