Sukhdarshan Kaur Uppal @ Darshan ... vs State Of Punjab & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 16671 P&H

CRM-M-31764-2017 (O&M)                                                -1-

108+234
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CRM-M-31764-2017 (O&M)
                                        Date of Decision:13.12.2022

SUKHDARSHAN KAUR UPPAL @ DARSHAN KAUR & ANR

                                                          ......... Petitioners

                                    Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS
                                                          ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :   Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.

            Mr. G.S. Dhillon, Advocate
            for respondent No.4.

                   ****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

CRM-48239-2022 Application for placing on record copy of compromise dated

14.07.2022, is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application,

duly supported by affidavit. Said document is taken on record. Office to

append the same at appropriate place.

CRM stands disposed of.

CRM-M-31764-2017 Through instant petition under Section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR

No.93 dated 19.06.2005 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 342, 148

and 149 of IPC registered at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana,

summoning order dated 07.02.2017 (Annexure P-5) under Section 319

1 of 4

CRM-M-31764-2017 (O&M) -2-

Cr.P.C. and order dated 31.10.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed by Sub

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon whereby the petitioners have

been declared proclaimed persons

Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that

petitioner No.1 left India alongwith her husband on 11.05.2002. The

petitioners visited India on 15.11.2002 on account of marriage of

petitioner No.2 and returned back to Canada on 12.02.2010. The

petitioner No.2 visited India on 10.12.2009 and returned back to Canada

on 11.05.2010. The impugned orders dated 07.02.2007 and 31.10.2012

were passed at the back of the petitioners. The petitioners were initially

found innocent. The petitioners were never served impugned orders,

thus, there is non-compliance of Section 82 Cr.P.C. The petitioners

would come to India and join proceedings on or before 15.02.2023. He

further submits that it is pure family dispute which has been settled

between the parties and for the said purpose the compromise has been

arrived at between the parties. He further undertakes to pay the costs of

Rs.35,000/-.

Mr. G.S. Dhillon, Advocate appearing on behalf of

respondent No.4 submits that the matter has been amicably settled

between the parties and he has no objection, if impugned orders are

quashed and petitioner is permitted to join the proceedings.

Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, AAG, Punjab submits that State has

no objection if the present petition is disposed of, subject to costs.

Intent of arrest and reason of denial of bail is to secure the

appearance of the accused at the time of trial. A person who seeks to be

liberated must take judgment and serve sentence in the event of his

2 of 4

CRM-M-31764-2017 (O&M) -3-

conviction. The nature of the crime charged, severity of punishment

prescribed, prime facie available evidences, history & background of the

accused may indicate that any amount of bond and surety is not going to

secure presence of accused, at the time of conviction.

Keeping in mind:

i) The object of cancellation of bond or declaration of anyone as

proclaimed offender/person is to secure his presence. The

petitioner has come forward to face trial and undertakes to

appear before trial court on each and every date, thus ,his

presence would meet ends of justice;

ii) The Petitioner for wasting valuable time and energy of courts

as well prosecution is willing to pay costs of Rs. 35000/-;

iii) The Petitioner is ready to furnish bond/surety to the satisfaction

of the trial court;

iv) The Petitioner is not involved in any other offence;

v) Co-accused(s) has already been released on probation, thus,

possibility of conviction is abysmally low;

vi) The petitioner was initially found innocent and thereafter Court

framed charges and declared the petitioners proclaimed

offender;

vii) The petitioner is accused of commission of bailable,

compoundable offence and parties have compromised the

matter.

viii) Trial is pending since 2005 and petitioner is ready to face trial,

thus, no prejudice is going to cause to prosecution or

complainant;

3 of 4

CRM-M-31764-2017 (O&M) -4-

this court is of the considered opinion that present petition

needs to be allowed, and accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioners

are directed to appear before trial Court on or before 15.02.2023 and on

their doing so, the trial court shall release them on bail on their

furnishing bail bonds. The petitioners, as agreed, shall pay costs of

Rs.35,000/- to the Director PGI Poor Patient Fund, Chandigarh.

Disposed of in above terms.

In the meantime, the operation of order dated 31.10.2012

(Annexure P-12) shall remain stayed.

                                               ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
                                                      JUDGE
13.12.2022
Ali


                   Whether speaking/reasoned    Yes/No
                      Whether Reportable        Yes/No




                                4 of 4