Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed seeking quashing of an FIR filed under Sections 212 and 216 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) against the father and brother of the absconder, the Single Judge Bench of Manisha Batra, J., allowed the petition, holding that the allegations were vague and the evidence was insufficient to infer that the accused person harboured the absconder. The Court also reiterated that simple denial of the whereabouts of an offender by his family members does not amount to harbouring such family members.
Background
In 2023, the complainant-inspector visited the house of the absconder, son of accused 1 (‘father’), to execute a warrant issued by the Court. Upon being asked about the absconder, the father and brother of the absconder stated that neither did they have any knowledge nor was he at home. Allegedly, thereafter, the complainant received secret information that the absconder used to often visit the house of the accused during odd hours, and his shelter, food, and other expenses were arranged by the father and brother, who were fully aware of his activities.
Thus, alleging that the father and brother were harbouring the absconder, the complainant filed the FIR. Thereafter, they were arrested and let out on bail.
Aggrieved, they filed the present petition.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court considered the scope of interference in the FIR filed against the accused persons under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’). In this regard, the Court referred to, inter alia, the landmark judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it was held that the power to quash an FIR/chargesheet can be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court also referred to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Supreme Court observed that the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal complaint or an FIR, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code.
Upon perusal of Section 212 of the IPC, the Court stated that to attract the provisions of Section 212 of the IPC, it is necessary to establish the commission of an offence of harbouring or concealing the person known or believed to be an offender and such harbouring or concealing must be with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment or to avoid his apprehension. However, before a person can be held guilty as an accessory, it must be shown that he expressly or impliedly assisted the offender. Mere knowledge of the whereabouts of an offender does not amount to harbouring unless the accused has done something to help the offender to evade apprehension.
Regarding the facts of the case, the Court noted that the absconder had been convicted in a case filed by his wife, and he had been declared a proclaimed offender.
The Court further took note of the following three circumstances to connect the accused 1 with the absconder:
-
In 2019, the absconder applied for his passport renewal and mentioned his father’s address in the relevant documents therein. This was reflected in the passport verification document.
-
Entries in the statement of bank account jointly in the name of the absconder and his father.
-
Closure of loan account in the name of the absconder.
Upon perusal of these documents, the Court opined that they were not sufficient to infer that the absconder’s father harboured him. The Court reasoned that the first document was issued in the absconder’s name in 2019, whereas he was declared proclaimed offender in 2023. At the time of the issuance of the said document, he was facing trial, and there was nothing on record to show that he had been avoiding appearance, and his father assisted him in any manner at that point in time.
Similarly, the Court stated that the second document merely shows that the absconder and his father were joint holders of a bank account. Furthermore, the transactions therein were during 2007-2008. Thus, the Court held that it could not be concluded that the accused 1 had been assisting his son in any manner or financially supporting him in 2023 or thereafter.
Lastly, regarding the third document, the Court stated that it showed that the loan account in the name of the absconder had been closed in 2023. The account statement did not show that any payment was made by the father and brother in this bank account at any point in time. Thus, the Court held that it could not be stated that the father had been aiding his absconding son in any manner whatsoever.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court held that the position which emerges is that there is no material on record to show that the father was either harbouring or concealing his son or had taken any steps to save him from legal punishment or had provided any shelter to him. Thus, his prosecution for the commission of the aforementioned offences would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
As far as the brother was concerned, the Court noted that the allegations against him were even more vague and general, and he appeared to have been implicated solely because he was the brother of the absconder. The Court further remarked that neither in the status report filed by the State nor in the arguments was it pointed out how and in what manner the brother had harboured the absconder. The Court reiterated that simple denial of the whereabouts of an offender by his family members does not amount to harbouring such family members. The prosecution was required to show that the father and brother had expressly or impliedly assisted the absconder, but nothing of that sort was brought on record. Thus, they could not be held responsible as accessories after the fact.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR, holding that the present case was fit for exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC to do real and substantial justice as the continuation of criminal proceedings against the father and brother would amount to abuse of process of law.
[Chaman Lal Kanda v. State of Punjab, CRM-M No.1963 of 2024 (O&M), decided on 19-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioners: Manmeet Singh Rana
For the respondents: AAG of Punjab Himani Arora and Sapan Dhir
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
