Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karan Ram vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 12 December, 2022
125
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-38178-2016
Date of Decision: 12.12.2022
KARAN RAM
...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present : Mr. N.S. Gill, Advocate
for Mr. Munsih Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ram Kumar Singla, D.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. J.S. Cooner, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
HARSH BUNGER, J.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
by petitioner, namely, Karan Ram for quashing of proceedings arising out of
FIR No.148 dated 09.10.2008 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 419,
420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station
Mullana, District Ambala and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom and for quashing of order dated 26.09.2009 (Annexure P-7)
whereby the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the other
co-accused in this case FIR have been acquitted of the charge by the trial
Court vide judgment dated 13.01.2015 (Annexure P-8) passed by the
1 of 3
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala. The trial qua the petitioner could not
be completed as he was in New Zealand, which resulted in his being
declared a proclaimed offender. He submits that the petitioner has been
wrongly declared as a proclaimed offender as no steps were taken to effect
service upon him in accordance with law. He further submits that the
petitioner is ready and willing to surrender himself to the jurisdiction of the
trial Court and face trial.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not disputed the
acquittal of the co-accused vide judgment dated 13.01.2015 (Annexure P-8)
passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala, however, the prayer in
the present petition is opposed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also
perused the paper book with their able assistance.
Admittedly, the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender
and has not faced trial. It has been argued that the co-accused have already
been acquitted of the charge by the trial Court and the petitioner is also
entitled to be discharged and the FIR is liable to be quashed. The order vide
which the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender has also been
challenged in the present petition alongwith quashing of the FIR. However,
in my considered view, it cannot be said at this stage as to whether the
evidence against the petitioner is the same or not. Moreover, the petitioner is
ready and willing to surrender himself to the jurisdiction of trial Court and
face trial.
In view of the aforementioned circumstances and also the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition
is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the trial
2 of 3
Court within a period of two weeks and in case, he surrenders within the
stipulated period, the trial Court is directed to release the petitioner on
interim bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to its satisfaction.
The trial Court is also directed to make all efforts to conclude
the trial expeditiously.
It is made clear that in the event of the petitioner not
cooperating with the trial, the trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed
against him in accordance with law.
The petition is disposed in the above terms.
December 12, 2022 (HARSH BUNGER)
gurpreet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
