HARPINDER SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR registered vide R.C. No.6(S)-SIU dtd. 16/7/2003 under Ss. 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), Sec. 30 of Arms Act and Sec. 13 (2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, at Police Station SPE/CBI/SCR-1, New Delhi and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, including the order dtd. 30/4/2009 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Patiala, vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, FIR No.93 dtd. 24/10/2002 under Ss. 420 & 120-B IPC was registered at Police Station Cantt. Ferozepur, District Ferozepur, however, later on, it was transferred to CBI for conducting investigation relating to issuance of arms licences pertaining to the years 1998-2001. Thereafter, CBI registered the impugned FIR and started the investigation. It is further submitted that allegations in FIR No.93 are that co-accused Gurcharan Singh Ferurai, ex-SSP, Ferozepur, had got issued arms licences of 24 persons from the office of District Magistrate, Ferozepur. On inquiry, it was found that all these persons are family members or close relatives of Gurcharan Singh Ferurai and the licences were prepared by using illegal methods by giving his address, while he was posted as SSP, Ferozepur. It is also submitted that after the CBI was entrusted with the inquiry, challan was presented and the petitioner was also one of the accused in the said FIR and from 2001 onwards, he is residing abroad and at the time, when the challan was presented, the Special Judge, CBI, Patiala issued a proclamation under Sec. 82 Cr.P.C. and later on, declared him a proclaimed offender.

(3.) Learned counsel has further argued that as per the report dtd. 20/3/2009 (Annexure P-4), which was reported by the HC, who effected the process that the petitioner was not residing in the village for the last many years. It is also submitted that without following the proper procedure and effecting the service on the petitioner through the Embassy at a place, where he was residing in Canada, no effective service was made on the petitioner, therefore, proceedings declaring him proclaimed offender, are liable to be set aside.