Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parmod @ Parmod Kumar vs State Of Ut Chandigarh on 14 December, 2022
CRM-M-58364-2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
120
CRM-M-58364-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 14.12.2022
PARMOD @ PARMOD KUMAR
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. R.N. Maurya, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, APP UT Chandigarh.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.
The present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed
for quashing the impugned order dated 23.09.2022 (Annexure P-6), whereby
petitioner was declared as Proclaimed Person and order dated 14.06.2022
(Annexure P-4) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh whereby the
bail order of the petitioner was cancelled and bail bonds and surety bonds were
forfeited to the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, complaint
filed under Section 138 of NI Act in which he had granted bail by the trial Court,
thereafter he was appearing regularly before the Court except on 10.05.2022,
when he was out of station in connection with his business. He had requested his
counsel to file an application for exemption, however, due to communication gap,
the same was not filed, leading to issuance of non-bailable warrants for
14.06.2022, wherein bail was cancelled and bail bonds and surety bonds stands
forfeited to the State. It is his submission that the petitioner had shifted his
1 of 4
CRM-M-58364-2022 (O&M) -2-
business premises with effect from 01.02.2018 from plot No.19, Industrial Area
Phase-2 Chandigarh to Plot No.653, Industrial Area Phase-I, Chandigarh, which
was well within the knowledge of respondent No. 2-complainant as he used to
supply goods to the petitioner at his new premises, however, he had intentionally
mentioned the old address in the complaint, on which the warrants could not be
executed. He had contacted his counsel to know the next date of hearing, who had
informed him that on account of having misplaced the file, he was unable to
inform about the next date of hearing. Proclamation proceedings were initiated
accordingly vide order dated 23.09.2022 Annexure P-6 vide which he was
declared proclaimed person. He further refers that at the initial summoning stage
also the report that he had left the address but the respondent-complainant did not
furnish the correct address despite having knowledge of the petitioner having
shifted from the previous premises as stated above. Learned counsel also submits
that he has instructions from his client that he is ready and willing to pay the entire
amount of Rs. 5 lacs.
He, however, submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join
the proceedings, and prays that one opportunity may be granted for the petitioner
to surrender before the learned trial Court, which may even be, subject to payment
of costs. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon
the orders of this Court in CRM-M-38277-2022 dated 26.08.2022, in the case of
"Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab", CRM-M-39000-2022, titled as "Raghav vs.
State of Punjab", decided on 9.9.2022 and CRM-M-36490-2022, "Major Singh
vs. State of Punjab", decided on 15.9.2022.
Notice of motion.
Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, APP for UT Chandigarh, who has
appeared on receipt of advance copy of the petition, opposes the petition by
2 of 4
CRM-M-58364-2022 (O&M) -3-
submitting that the impugned order has been rightly passed by the learned trial
Court.
Heard.
The very purpose of issuance of non-bailable warrants, is to compel
and secure the presence of the accused to face trial and establish the rule of law so
as to ensure finalization of the proceedings.
Adverting to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the petitioner
was out of station in connect with his business, though he had requested his
counsel to file an application for exemption, however, due to communication gap,
the same was not filed, thus could not appear before the trial Court, leading to the
passing of the impugned order, which appears to be justified explanation of
absence. At times, the accused or his counsel can be prevented by sufficient
reasons to put an appearance before the Court on a given date and every such
absence cannot necessarily be construed as deliberate and willful. However, it is
incumbent upon him to join the proceedings, before the trial Court, for the
culmination of the same. Considering the fact that the absence of the petitioner
being not willful or deliberate and his readiness and willingness to surrender and
join the proceedings, in case one opportunity is granted to the petitioner, no
prejudice shall be caused to any of the parties, rather his joining the proceedings
would help expediting the trial. Thus, in order to make the ends of justice meet
and finding judgments referred to above being applicable to the instant case, the
present petition deserves to be allowed.
In view of the facts and circumstances of this case and the judgments
referred to above, the impugned order dated 23.09.2022 (Annexure P-6), whereby
petitioner was declared as Proclaimed Person and order dated 14.06.2022
(Annexure P-4) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh whereby the
3 of 4
CRM-M-58364-2022 (O&M) -4-
bail order of the petitioner was cancelled and bail bonds and surety bonds were
forfeited to the State, are set aside, subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- with the Bar
Association at District Court, Chandigarh. The petitioner is directed to surrender
before the trial Court on or before 21.12.2022 and furnish his fresh bail/ surety
bonds. On so doing, the trial Court shall release him on bail by imposing surety to
its satisfaction. He is also directed to furnish an undertaking by way of his
affidavit that he will appear on each and every date of hearing before the trial
Court, unless specifically exempted by the Court. He shall also surrender his
passport and will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court or
the trial Court may impose any other condition that it may deem appropriate in the
facts and circumstances of the present case.
Before parting with this order, it is made abundantly clear that in case
the petitioner does not adhere to the aforesaid, the present petition shall be deemed
to have been dismissed without any reference to this Court.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
December 14, 2022
S.Sharma(syr)
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
