Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwant Singh Alias Kanta vs State Of Punjab on 8 May, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064101
CRM-M-21588
21588 of 2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-21588 of 2024 2024(O&M)
Date of Decision: 008.05.2024
Kulwant Singh @ Kanta
...Petitioner
Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
Respondent
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocate
For the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Dhaliwal, AAG Punjab
Punjab.
***
KARAMJIT SINGH, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by petitioner seeki
seeking
ng
quashing of order dated 16.03.2012
16.0 .2012 (Annexure P
P-9)
9) passed by the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide which the petitioner was
declared as proclaimed offender in criminal case having F
FIR
IR No. 209 dated
17.12.2005 under
under Section 457, 380, 342, 34 IPC
IPC(Sections
Sections 392, 395 IPC and
Section
on 25 of Arms Act added lateron),
lateron registered at Police Station Hariana,
District Hoshiarpur.
2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
falsely implicated in the aforesaid criminal case and he was not aware about
the pendency of the same in any Court. It is further submitted that the
impugned order was passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of
Section 82 Cr.P.C. as clear 30 days period
period was not given to the petitioner to
appear before the Court concerned with effect from the date of publication
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064101
CRM-M-21588
of proclamation as is evident from Annexure P
P-6 to Annexure P-9.
9. The
counsel for the petitioner further submits that it being so the impugne
impugned
d order
Annexure P--9
9 is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. In this regard
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon decision of this Court in
Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. 2013(4) RCR(Crl.) 550. The
counsel for the petitioner further submits that otherwise also the co
co-accused
accused
who faced trial were acquitted by the trial Court vide its judgment dated
24.07.2013 (Annexure P-10).
P 10). It is further submitted that petitioner is ready
to join the proceedings before the trial Court at the earliest.
3. On the other hand, the State counsel while resisting the present
petition submits that the petitioner was fully aware about the pendency of
the aforesaid criminal case and intentionally avoided his service and was
rightly declared as proclaimed
proclaimed offender by the learned trial Court. It is
further submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned
order (Annexure P-9).
P
4. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
parties.
5. From a perusal of the documents w
which
hich are referred by counsel
for the petitioner, it appears that the learned trial Court issued proclamation
of the petitioner under Section 82 Cr.P.C. for 17.01.2012 vide order dated
08.12.2011 (Annexure P-6).
P 6). From the perusal of Annexure P
P-9 it is evidentt
that the said proclamation was effected on 12.01.2012 against the petitioner
and the date given for his appearance before the Court concerned was
17.01.2012. Thus, in the present case the procedure prescribed under Section
82 Cr.P.C. has not been adhered and in fact clear period of 30 days as
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064101
CRM-M-21588
mandated under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has not been afforded to the petitioner in
order to appear before the Court concerned with effect from the date of
publication of proclamation against him. Thus, in the light of law laid down
by this Court in Ashok Kumar's case (supra) the impugned order being
illegal deserves to be set aside. Admittedly, impugned order was passed
more than 12 years back and it being so the petitioner deserves to be
burdened with costs.
6. In light of the above, without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and impugned order
(Annexure P-9)
P 9) is set aside subject to costs of Rs.5000/
Rs.5000/- to be deposited by
the petitioner within a period of next two week
weekss from today, with the District
Legal Services Authority concerned, failing which the present petition
should be deemed to have been dismissed.
(KARAMJIT SINGH )
08.05.2024 JUDGE
Jiten
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
