The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that merely knowing where an offender is hiding is not enough to prosecute someone for “harbouring” under the Indian Penal Code unless it is also proven that they actively helped the offender avoid arrest or punishment.
This important observation was made by Justice Manisha Batra while quashing an FIR registered against Chaman Lal Kanda and his other son under Sections 212 and 216 of the IPC. The FIR alleged that they had given shelter to Harish Kanda, the primary accused in a matrimonial dispute, to help him evade arrest.
"To attract the provisions of Section 212 IPC, it is necessary to establish that the accused either harboured or concealed an offender knowingly and with the intent of shielding him from legal punishment," the Court observed.
Read Also:- Kerala HC Grants Bail to Six Juveniles Accused in Class 10 Student Shahabas' Murder Case
The FIR was based on a complaint by a police officer who claimed that Harish Kanda, son of petitioner No.1, used to frequently visit his father’s house at odd hours, and the petitioners provided him with shelter and food despite knowing about the arrest warrant issued against him.
However, the Court found no substantial evidence to support this claim. It noted that Harish Kanda had been living separately since 2017 and had minimal or no contact with his father or brother since then. The petitioners asserted that they had no idea of his whereabouts.
"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," the Court emphasized.
The prosecution relied on documents such as a 2019 passport renewal application in which Harish mentioned his father's address, a joint bank account statement from 2007–2008, and a loan closure in 2023. But the Court held these documents were insufficient to prove that the petitioners had helped the absconder.
"None of the documents on record show any act on the part of the petitioners that could establish harbouring or concealment with the intent to prevent arrest," Justice Batra noted.
The Court further highlighted that simply denying the whereabouts of a relative who is an offender does not amount to harbouring under Sections 212 or 216 IPC. The prosecution had failed to show any express or implied assistance by the petitioners.
"The prosecution was required to show that the petitioners expressly or impliedly assisted the main offender, but nothing of that sort has been brought on record," the Court said.
Quoting precedent from the Supreme Court, including State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, the High Court reiterated that courts must interfere to prevent the abuse of legal process, especially when the FIR does not disclose the essential elements of the alleged offence.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Builder not liable to pay interest on homebuyer's bank loan for delay in possession of flat
Given the lack of evidence and vague allegations, the High Court held that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would be a clear misuse of the judicial process.
"This is a fit case for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure justice and prevent misuse of law," the Court concluded, quashing the FIR against the petitioners.
Quote for Highlight:
"Mere knowledge of an offender’s whereabouts does not constitute harbouring unless the accused actively assists in evading arrest." – Justice Manisha Batra
Title: Chaman Lal Kanda and another v. State of Punjab
