Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhag Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 15 April, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049665
2024:PHHC:049665
CRM-M-7154-2021 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-7154-2021
Date of Decision: 15.04.2024
BHAG SINGH
... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Saroha, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Sikandh Mehta, Advocate for
Mr. Shail Khunger, Advocate
for respondent No.5.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
for quashing of the order dated 16.01.2020 (Annexure P-2) passed by the
JMIC, Ludhiana in Criminal Complaint No.COMI-522-2019 titled as Bhag
Singh Versus Rajiv Kumar Etc. vide which the complaint filed by the
petitioner has been dismissed in default.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a Criminal
Complaint under Sections 406/420/34 IPC against respondent Nos.2 to 5
before the Court of JMIC, Ludhiana for cheating him of an amount of
Rs.15,80,000/-. The copy of the complaint dated 11.07.2019 is attached as
Annexure P-1 to the petitioner.
3. The complaint was entrusted to the Court of JMIC, Ludhiana on
15.07.2019 and the next fixed was 09.09.2019 for the preliminary evidence
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049665
2024:PHHC:049665
of the complainant. As the petitioner did not appear before the concerned
Court, the case was dismissed in default on 16.01.2020. The copy of the
order dated 16.01.2020 is attached as Annexure P-2 to the present petition.
4. It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on account
of the lack of diligence on the part of the counsel representing the petitioner
in the Trial, the petitioner was unable to appear on the concerned date
because of which the impugned order came to be passed. In fact, the counsel
had repeatedly informed the petitioner/complainant that on account of the
Covid-19 pandemic the cases were not being heard. It was only later that the
petitioner came to know on visiting the Courts that his case had been
dismissed in default way back in January, 2020. He contends that if the
impugned order was not set aside the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss.
Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Punjab State Warehousing
Corporation Faridkot Versus M/s Sh. Durga Ji Traders and others, 2012(1)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 358 to contend that even though there was an alternative
remedy by way of filing of an appeal against acquittal, the instant petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was maintainable.
6. Despite service none has put in appearance on behalf of
respondent Nos.2 to 4.
7. The proxy counsel for respondent No.5 had sought time to argue
the matter. However, as the order I intend to pass is based on record and the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the matter does not require to be
adjourned particularly when respondent No.5 has sought adjournments on
earlier occasions as well.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049665
2024:PHHC:049665
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone
through the record.
9. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would be apposite to
refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab
State Warehousing Corporation Faridkot (supra) and the same is
reproduced hereineblow:-
9. Bearing in mind the afore-stated legal position in regard
to the scope and width of the power of the High Court under
section 482 of the Code, we are of the opinion that the
impugned decision is clearly indefensible. As noted above,
the High Court has rejected the petition under
section 482 of the Code on the ground of availability of an
alternative remedy without considering the seriousness of
the nature of the offences and the fact that the Trial Court
had dismissed the complaint on a hyper technical ground
viz. since the complainant had been appearing in person,
despite order dated 16th April 1999, exempting him from
personal appearance, the said exemption order became
redundant and the complainant should have sought a fresh
exemption from personal appearance. We feel that such a
view defies any logic. An order of exemption from personal
appearance continues to be in force till it is revoked or
recalled. We are convinced that in the instant case, rejection
of appellants petition under section 482 of the Code has
resulted in miscarriage of justice. Availability of an
alternative remedy of filing an appeal is not an absolute bar
in entertaining a petition under section 482 of the Code. As
aforesaid, one of the circumstances envisaged in the said
Section, for exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court is to
secure the ends of justice. Undoubtedly, the Trial Court had
dismissed the complaint on a technical ground and
therefore, interests of justice required the High Court to
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049665
2024:PHHC:049665
exercise its jurisdiction to set aside such an order so that the
Trial Court could proceed with the trial on merits.
(emphasis supplied)
10. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, apparently, the
petitioner/complainant was unable to appear on 16.01.2020 because of which
the complaint came to be dismissed in default. It is the categoric averment of
the petitioner that he did not appear on account of the fact that his counsel
before the Trial Court had not apprised him of the date and thereafter, the
Covid-19 pandemic shut down the entire judicial system. Further, merely
because an alternative remedy of filing of an appeal against acquittal is
available would not bar a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
11. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 16.01.2020 (Annexure P-2) passed by the JMIC,
Ludhiana in Criminal Complaint No.COMI-522-2019 is set aside and the
complaint is ordered to be restored to its original number and the Trial Court
is directed to proceed with the Trial as per law.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
15.04.2024
JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
