Daljeet Kaur vs State Of Haryana
2023 Latest Caselaw 12508 P&H

2023:PHHC:105594
CRM-M-47573-2019 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

259 CRM-M-47573-2019
Date of decision :-09.08.2023

Daljeet Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus

State of Haryana ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

Present: Mr. Liaqat Ali, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana,
for the respondent-State.

36 2 2 2c

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.

1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing order dated 17.02.2017, Annexure P-7, whereby petitioner has been declared as a Proclaimed Offender.

2. Factual matrix, leading to the filing of the petition, is that FIR No.817 dated 20.11.2014, Annexure P-3 was registered under Sections 406, 420, 120-B, 109 and 506, IPC, 1860, at P.S. Thanesar City, District Kurukshetra, on the complaint of Gagandeep alleging that the petitioner and her husband, Gurmeet Singh, duped the complainant of Rs.22,24,500/- on the pretext of sending his brother, Sandeep Sehgal, to U.S.A. As the accused failed to join the investigation, application was filed for issuance of warrant of arrest and by the impugned order, petitioner was declared as a Proclaimed Offender.

3. Counsel for petitioner has contended that the petitioner had a matrimonial dispute with her husband and was staying separately. He has

208.0821 10:56 jmade a reference to rent agreement dated 27.03.2014, Annexure P-5, to

| attest to the accuracy an integrity of this document Chandigarh

2023:PHHC:105594

fortify his submission. She submits that due to estrangement, her husband had lodged FIR No.87 dated 01.09.2015 at P.S. Satnampura, District Kapurthala, Annexure P-6, against the petitioner and her son alleging that the petitioner, who is shown to be residing at Hoshiarpur, had committed theft at his house. It has been argued that during investigation summons for appearance and warrants were issued at the address of her husband, where she was not residing. He contends that the proclamation issued by the trial court was effected for 06.02.2017, but the trial court adjourned the proceedings for 17.02.2017 as the requisite period of 30 days had not expired. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Ashok

Kumar Versus State of Haryana 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 550.

4. Opposing the petition, State counsel submits that although the proclamation was issued both in the name of the petitioner as well as her husband, but her husband joined the investigation in compliance of order passed by this Court and he was released on interim anticipatory bail, which was made absolute on 01.05.2017, Annexure P-8. However, he submits that petitioner did not co-operate and has been declared as an absconder after following the procedure prescribed by law. Still further, he submits that the matter was investigated and a cancellation report was presented before the Trial Court, which has been accepted by order dated 03.05.2023, a copy of which has been placed on the record.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions.

6. It is evident from the record that the statement of the serving officer was recorded on 06.02.2017 regarding the fact that the proclamation had been effected for the said date, but as the requisite period of 30 days had

SHEETAL 6 not lapsed, proceedings were adjourned to 17.02.2017 when the impugned | attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

2023:PHHC:105594

order was passed. It is, therefore, apparent that a clear period of 30 days had not been afforded to the petitioner till 06.02.2017 for causing appearance after the proclamation was effected and a further deferment of the proceedings could not have cured an inherent defect in effecting service. Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. requires a clear period of 30 days. Provision being mandatory, it has to be strictly adhered to, which has not been done in the present case.

7. Furthermore, the matter has been duly investigated and a cancellation report has been presented, which has been accepted by the trial court during the pendency of the instant petition. Therefore, directing the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court at this stage would only be an empty formality. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order.

8. Ergo, petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 17.02.2017 is

set aside. No costs.

09.08.2023 (SUVIR SEHGAL) sheetal JUDGE

Whether Speaking/reasoned | Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

SHEETAL

2023.08.21 10:56

| attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh