Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karnail Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 3 April, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044761
2024:PHHC:044761
115 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-29592-2023(O&M)
Date of Decision:03.04.2024
KARNAIL SINGH
..... Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
..... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Dharam Bir Bhargav, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjeet Singh Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate
for complainant/respondent No.2.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
CRM-13338-2024
For the reasons stated in the application and there being no
objection from the other side the present application is allowed and the
main case is taken on board today itself.
CRM-M-29592-2023
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
quashing of order dated 06.11.2017(Annexure P-2) passed by the Court
of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar whereby the petitioner
has been declared as proclaimed person in criminal case having FIR No.
121 dated 26.05.2011 registered under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC at
Police Station Division-A, Amritsar, District Amritsar.
2. Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned
order submits that order dated 06.11.2017(Annexure P-2) was not passed
by the Court concerned in consonance with the provisions of Section 82
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044761
CRM-M-29592-2023(O&M) :2: 2024:PHHC:044761
Cr.P.C. as period of 30 days was not provided to the petitioner for his
appearance before the Court concerned with effect from the date of
publication of proclamation as is evident from the orders dated
25.09.2017, 06.10.2017, 21.10.2017 and 06.11.2017 which are
reproduced in the petition itself. Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that another two accused who faced trial were acquitted by the
Court concerned vide judgment dated 27.02.2018(Annexure P-3).
Counsel for the petitioner further submits that now matter has been
compromised between the parties vide affidavit dated
19.04.2013(Annexure P-4) and that petitioner is ready to join the
proceedings before the trial Court.
3. Learned State counsel while resisting the present petition
submits that there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned order
dated 06.11.2017(Annexure P-2) and that the present petition deserve to
be dismissed.
4. Counsel appearing on behalf of complainant/respondent
No.2 has admitted the factum of compromise which has been effected
between the parties and is having no objection if the impugned order is
set aside.
5. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
petitioner and State counsel.
6. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the impugned
order was not passed by the Court concerned as per the mandate of
Section 82 Cr.P.C. which provides that at least 30 days time is to be given
to accused person to appear before the Court concerned from the date of
publication of proclamation. In the instant case, it appears that period of
less than 30 days was given for that purpose to the present petitioner.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044761
CRM-M-29592-2023(O&M) :3: 2024:PHHC:044761
Even otherwise it appears that now parties have entered into an
agreement and effected compromise and already two accused persons
who faced trial stand acquitted vide Annexure P-3.
7. In light of the above, the impugned order is not sustainable
in eyes of law and is hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear
before the learned trial Court within next 3 weeks and to move an
application for grant of regular bail which is to be decided by the said
Court on the same very day taking into consideration the fact that the
matter has been compromised between the parties.
8. The present petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
03.04.2024 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Priyanka Thakur JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
