Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neha Padam And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165001
S. No.128 2023:PHHC:165001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-56611 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision:21.12.2023
Neha Padam and another .....Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and another .....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sarabjit Singh Cheema, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral)
CRM No.51689 of 2023
This is an application for placing on record copies of the passports of
the applicant/ petitioners in compliance of the order dated 09.11.2023.
Application is allowed.
Copies of passports as placed on record by the petitioners are take on
record.
CRM-M-56611 of 2023
Criminal complaint (Annexure P.1) under Sections 406/420/120-B
IPC and Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by respondent No.2
- Vishal Madan against two petitioners - Neha Padam and Raman Padam, besides
one Varun Gupta, in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar.
During proceedings of that complaint, the two petitioners were declared
proclaimed persons vide order dated 14.08.2017.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165001
CRM-M-56611 of 2023 (O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:165001
It is contended by learned counsel that much prior to filing of the
complaint itself, petitioners had left India and shifted to UK in 2011 and have
never returned.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention towards copy
of the passport of petitioner - Neha Padam revealing that she had come to India
on 08.09.2011 and had left on 16.09.2011 and, thereafter, she came to India only
on 03.04.2022 and not in between. Learned counsel has further drawn attention
towards the copy of the passport of the petitioner - Raman Padam who had left
India on 21.11.2010 and never returned. Thus neither on the date of filing of the
complaint nor on the date when the petitioners were declared proclaimed persons,
petitioners were in India.
Learned counsel further contends that trial proceeded against third
accused Varun Gupta and he was convicted under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC
vide judgment dated 30.10.2019, copy of which is Annexure P.4. Said Varun
Gupta filed an appeal but during pendency of the appeal, compromise was
effected between the parties. Copy of that compromise is Annexure P.5. Learned
counsel contends that the compromise was effected by the complainant not only
with Varun Gupta but also with both the petitioners - Raman Padam and Neha
Padam through their attroneys, as is evident from copy of the compromise deed
dated 04.09.2023. On the basis of this compromise, the appeal filed by Varun
Gupta was accepted and the conviction recorded against him was set aside vide
order dated 04.09.2023, copy of which is Annexure P.6.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 does not dispute the fact that
matter has since been compromised between the parties.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165001
CRM-M-56611 of 2023 (O&M) -3- 2023:PHHC:165001
In view of all the circumstances as above, present petition is hereby
accepted and the impugned order dated 14.08.2017 whereby the petitioners were
declared proclaimed persons are hereby set aside. Besides, the impugned
complaint No.COMI/32039/2013 Annexure P.1 and all the subsequent
proceedings are hereby quashed.
December 21, 2023 ( DEEPAK GUPTA )
renu JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165001
3 of 3
