Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashvani Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 5 September, 2022
CRM-M-37284-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-37284-2022
Date of Decision: September 05, 2022
Ashvani Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. H.S. Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Arora, DAG, Punjab.
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
By way of present petition, petitioner seeks quashing of
impugned order dated 16.09.2016 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, vide which petitioner has been declared
proclaimed offender because of his non-appearance in case FIR No. 70,
dated 27.04.2015 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468,
506 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station City, Rupnagar, District
Rupnagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the main
matter parties have already amicably settled the dispute by way of written
compromise dated 10.08.2022 (Annexure P-3), and on the basis of said
compromise a separate petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., i.e. CRM-
M-37279-2022, titled as 'Ashwani Kumar v. State of Punjab and others',
has already been filed by the petitioner, seeking quashing of
aforementioned FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arising
PRASHANT KAPOOR
2022.09.06 18:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
therefrom. Learned counsel further states that the said petition is now
fixed for 29.09.2022 and vide order dated 23.08.2022, parties were
directed to present themselves before the Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court for
getting their statements recorded with regard to the factum of
compromise so effected between them and the Illaqa Magistrate/trial
Court has been directed to send a report along with statements of the
parties with regard to the validity or otherwise of the compromise so
effected between the parties, which is awaited.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in
case petitioner is given one chance to appear and released on bail, he
would be able to get his statement recorded in compliance of the order
dated 23.08.2022, passed by this Court in CRM-M-37279-2022
Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the
aforementioned submission by submitting that the petitioner does not
deserve any leniency because about six years have already elapsed during
which the petitioner remained absent from court, as a result of which the
case could not proceed further for such a long time.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
Undoubtedly, petitioner deserves some punishment because
he is on run since 16.09.2016 and on that count trial in the present case
could not proceed any further. But at the same time, it would not serve
purpose of either side, inasmuch as, already matter is pending before the
Court without any proceeding for about six years. Therefore, taking into
PRASHANT KAPOOR
2022.09.06 18:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
account paramount consideration of the Court to secure presence of the
accused and to speed up the trial, it would be appropriate to grant one
opportunity to the petitioner to appear before the trial Court as also to
grant him concession of bail in case he appears before the concerned
Court and as a punishment some cost be imposed upon him.
In view of above, this petition is allowed. Petitioner is
directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty
Magistrate on or before 12.09.2022 and furnish an undertaking that he
would not repeat such default and would join Court proceedings on each
and every date, except with prior permission of the court.
It is ordered that in case petitioner appears before the
learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate within time given,
he would be released on bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to
the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
However, this order shall be subject to payment of an
amount of Rs.10,000/- as costs, to be deposited with the Member
Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Rupnagar.
Needless to mention here that once petitioner complies with
the conditions detailed here-in-above, impugned order dated 16.09.2016
(Annexure P-2), would become inoperative qua petitioner only.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
September 05, 2022
Pkapoor Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
PRASHANT KAPOOR
2022.09.06 18:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
