Safiya Malik

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Manisha Batra quashed the FIR registered under Sections 212 and 216 of the Indian Penal Code against two individuals accused of harbouring a proclaimed offender. The Court held that no material on record demonstrated any act of assistance, concealment, or harbouring on the part of the petitioners and ruled that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of process of law. The petition under Section 482 CrPC was accordingly allowed and all consequential proceedings were ordered to be quashed.

The matter arose from FIR No.178 dated 07.09.2023, registered at Police Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala, under Sections 212 and 216 IPC. The complaint was lodged by Inspector Jarnail Singh, a police official posted at the CIA Staff, Kapurthala, who was tasked with executing a warrant of arrest issued against Harish Kanda. The warrant stemmed from a petition bearing No.931 of 2023 titled Pooja Kanda v. Harish Kanda, filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Standard Chartered | Calls Case A Clear Abuse Of Law Over Escrow Dispute

According to the complaint, on 07.09.2023, the complainant officer visited the residence of Harish Kanda’s father. The two petitioners—father and brother of the proclaimed offender—were present at the house. The police officer informed them of the court’s directive and requested that Harish Kanda be produced. The petitioners, however, responded that they neither knew his whereabouts nor had any contact with him. The complainant alleged that based on secret information, it was learned that Harish Kanda often visited the residence during odd hours and that the petitioners arranged for his shelter and other necessities. This formed the basis of the allegations that the petitioners were harbouring the proclaimed offender.

Following the FIR, a criminal investigation was initiated. The petitioners were arrested during the course of the investigation and were subsequently released on bail. The investigation was later concluded and the challan was presented before the competent court.

The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the FIR and the resulting criminal proceedings. They contended that the allegations in the FIR, even if accepted as true, did not make out a prima facie case under the charged provisions. They submitted that the dispute was rooted in matrimonial discord between Harish Kanda and his wife, which had earlier led to registration of an FIR under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. The petitioner No.1 had already been acquitted in those proceedings. He further contended that Harish Kanda had been residing separately since December 2017 and the petitioners had no knowledge of his current location.

The respondent-State filed a status report asserting that a proper investigation had been conducted and that a prima facie case was made out. It opposed the quashing on the ground that specific allegations were levelled against the petitioners. The complainant in the original petition, Pooja Kanda, also moved an application to place certain documents on record. However, the Court declined to consider those documents as she was not a party to the FIR and the materials were not part of the official investigation record.

The Court heard the arguments of Mr. Manmeet Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioners; Ms. Himani Arora, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State; and Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for Ms. Pooja Kanda.

The Court examined the allegations in light of the statutory provisions. It began by setting out the legal elements of Sections 212 and 216 IPC. The Court stated in italics, “Section 212 of IPC provides for commission of offence for harbouring an offender. A plain reading of Section 212 of IPC would show that for convicting a person under this section, the following essential ingredients must be established…” It listed the elements as the actual commission of an offence, concealment or harbouring, knowledge or belief of the offender’s criminality, and intention to shield from legal punishment.

Addressing the definition of “harbour”, the Court quoted from Section 52A IPC and noted, “The word ‘harbour’ includes supplying a person with shelter, food, drink, money, clothes, arms, ammunition or means or conveyance, or assisting a person by any means… to evade apprehension.”

The Court then evaluated the material relied upon by the prosecution. These included three documents—Annexures R-1 to R-3—used to establish the petitioners' alleged involvement. The first, Annexure R-1, showed that Harish Kanda had listed the address of petitioner No.1 in a 2019 passport renewal application. The Court remarked, “Harish Kanda was declared a proclaimed offender in a case in the year 2023. As on 18.06.2019, he was facing trial and there is nothing on record to show that he had been avoiding appearance and the petitioner No.1 assisted him in any manner at that point of time.”

Regarding Annexure R-2, a joint bank account statement from 2007–2008, the Court observed, “This document also does not serve any purpose.” On Annexure R-3, which showed the closure of a loan account in December 2023, the Court stated, “This statement of account does not show that any payment had been made by the petitioners… therefore… it cannot be stated that the petitioner No.1 had been helping his absconding son in any manner whatsoever.”

Summarising the findings, the Court recorded: “There is no material on record to show that the petitioner No.1 was either harbouring or concealing his son or had taken any steps for saving him from legal punishment or had provided any shelter to him.”

Also Read: Karnataka High Court : Construction Within 100 Metres Of Protected Monument Is Prohibited | Permission Granted Falls Foul Of The Mandate Of The Statute

Concerning petitioner No.2, the Court noted: “The allegations against him are even more vague and general. He appears to have been implicated in this case only due to his being brother of Harish Kanda.” It concluded, “The well settled proposition of law is that simple denial of the whereabouts of an offender by his family members does not amount to harbouring such family member.”

The Court issued the following directive: “Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the FIR No.178 dated 07.09.2023 registered under Sections 212 and 216 of IPC at Police Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala as registered against the petitioners and all the proceedings having emanated therefrom are hereby ordered to be quashed.”

Additionally, the Court disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications and stated:

“This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court’s official webpage.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Manmeet Singh Rana, Advocate

For the Respondents: Ms. Himani Arora, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab

For the Complainant: Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate (for Ms. Pooja Kanda, via Video Conferencing)

Case Title: Chaman Lal Kanda and Another v. State of Punjab

Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:070004

Case Number: CRM-M No.1963 of 2024 (O&M)

Bench: Justice Manisha Batra

[Read/Download order]