Vikash Sharma vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 14391 P&H

CRM-M-45252-2019 (O&M)                                                 -1-


    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                                 CRM-M-45252-2019 (O&M)
                                                  Date of decision: 15.11.2022

Vikash Sharma                                                     ...Petitioner

                                        Versus

State of Haryana                                                ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:-   Mr. M. S. Dalal, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Himmat Singh, DAG, Haryana.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)

Prayer in this petition is for quashing the order dated

27.05.2019, passed by the trial Court, vide which the petitioner has been

declared a proclaimed offender in case FIR No. 212 dated 19.06.2016,

registered under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the IPC at Police Station Pundri,

District Kaithal; as well as for quashing the order dated 10.09.2019,

whereby the order dated 27.05.2019 passed by the trial Court treating it as a

complaint case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits

that vide judgment dated 24.09.2019, passed by the trial Court, the

petitioner, after facing a full length trial, stands acquitted of the charges

framed against him under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the IPC in aforesaid

case/FIR No. 212.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that during

the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner, at one point of

1 of 3

CRM-M-45252-2019 (O&M) -2-

time, was declared a proclaimed offender and thereafter, he appeared before

the trial Court and was granted regular bail and faced the trial. It is further

submitted that in such circumstances, the impugned orders are liable to be

set aside, as despite the direction given by the trial Court, no FIR was

registered under Section 174-A IPC as the petitioner has already appeared

before the trial Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that vide

impugned order dated 10.09.2019, after the petitioner was declared a

proclaimed offender in case/FIR No. 212, however, noticing the fact that the

FIR was not registered, it was further directed by the trial Court that in view

of order dated 10.09.2019, the proceedings be initiated against the petitioner

as a complaint case. It is further submitted that even this order has been

passed without appreciating law and facts and the same is liable to be set

aside.

Learned State counsel could not dispute the factual position

that the petitioner stands acquitted in the main case/FIR No. 212, vide

judgment dated 24.09.2019. It is also not disputed that after the petitioner

was declared a proclaimed offender, vide impugned order dated 27.05.2019,

and he had surrendered before the trial Court and was released on regular

bail and thereafter, he faced full length trial and was acquitted.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, considering the

fact that the petitioner has already been acquitted in aforesaid FIR No. 212,

this Court finds that no useful purpose will be served in prosecuting the

petitioner in terms of impugned orders.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned

2 of 3

CRM-M-45252-2019 (O&M) -3-

order dated 27.05.2019, declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender; as

well as impugned order dated 10.09.2019, whereby a direction was issued to

treat the order dated 27.05.2019 as a complaint, are hereby set aside.

15.11.2022                                     (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
Waseem Ansari                                          JUDGE


                Whether speaking/reasoned                     Yes/No

                Whether reportable                            Yes/No




                                     3 of 3