Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sita Ram vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 May, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064313
CRM-M-21617-2024 [1]
130
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-21617-2024
Date of decision: 08.05.2024
Sita Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and Others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
quashing of order dated 29.08.2019 passed by District Magistrate, Sonepat
vide which petitioner and one another surety were directed to deposit a sum
of Rs.2 lac each by way of penalty, in proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Pardeep son of Sita Ram was
convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in a criminal case having FIR
No.381 dated 21.11.2008 under Sections 302, 307, 325, 323, 449 IPC and 25
of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Model Town, Rewari, by the Court
of Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari vide judgment and order dated
7/14.05.2011 and he was lodged in District Prison, Gurugram. Pardeep was
granted parole for a period of 4 weeks and he was to surrender before the jail
authorities on expiry of the period of parole. However, he overstayed parole
and did not surrender within the given time period. At the time of release of
Pardeep on parole, petitioner Sita Ram and one another person stood surities
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064313
CRM-M-21617-2024 [2]
and both of them furnished surety bonds in sum of Rs.2 lac each. As Pardeep,
failed to surrender in time, District Magistrate, Sonepat initiated proceedings
under Section 446 Cr.P.C. against petitioner and one another surety and
passed impugned order dated 29.08.2019 Annexure P-5 whereby penalty of
Rs.2 lac each was imposed on them. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed
the present petition.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that when Pardeep was
released on parole, immediately thereafter, he was arrested in a criminal case
having FIR No.85 dated 21.03.2016 under Sections 376, 120-B, 506 and 450
IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Sonepat and as such, the said convict
failed to surrender within given time period. It is further submitted that in the
meantime, the appeal filed by Pardeep against judgment and order dated
07.05.2011 was allowed and he was acquitted by division Bench of this
Court vide judgment dated 26.02.2019 (Annexure P-4). Counsel for the
petitioner further submits that Pardeep failed to surrender within given time
period due to unavoidable circumstances, as he was arrested in another
criminal case having FIR No.85 dated 21.03.2016. It is further submitted that
in the instant case, Pardeep was acquitted on 26.02.2019 whereas impugned
order was passed by concerned District Magistrate on 29.08.2019. It is
further submitted that the petitioner is aged about 75 years and is not in a
position to pay aforesaid penalty of Rs.2 lac. It is further submitted that
Pardeep never absconded. That in the given circumstances, penalty of Rs.2
lac imposed by District Magistrate, Sonepat is excessive and arbitrary and
deserves to be set aside or requires to be modified.
4. Notice of motion.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064313
CRM-M-21617-2024 [3]
5. Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of
the State and submits that Pardeep who was convicted and sentenced to
imprisonment in a criminal case having FIR No.381 dated 21.11.2008, was
granted parole and petitioner stood surety for him in sum of Rs.2 lac. That
Pardeep overstayed Parole and consequently, District Magistrate concerned
initiated proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. and finally passed impugned
order Annexure P-5 in accordance with law and that there is no illegality or
perversity in the impugned order. It is further submitted that as per Annexure
P-4, Pardeep was acquitted in aforesaid criminal case having FIR No.381
dated 21.11.2008. The State counsel further submits that from the perusal of
Annexure P-4, it appears that Pardeep was arrested in one another case
having FIR No.85 dated 21.03.2016 under Sections 376, 120-B, 506, 450
IPC, Police Station Sadar Sonepat.
6. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
parties.
7. Admittedly, petitioner stood as a surety in sum of Rs.2 lac for
Pardeep who was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in a criminal case
having FIR No.381 dated 21.11.2008, wherein he was ordered to be released
on parole in year 2016. Consequently, Pardeep was released from jail. It
appears that in the meantime, Pardeep was arrested in one another case
having FIR No.85 dated 21.03.2016 under Sections 376, 120-B, 506, 450
IPC, Police Station Sadar Sonepat and subsequently, he was sent to District
Jail, Sonepat on 26.03.2016 in aforesaid rape case. Due to this very reason,
Pardeep failed to surrender before the jail authorities concerned, immediately,
on expiry of period of parole and thus, overstayed parole due to afore-stated
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064313
CRM-M-21617-2024 [4]
unavoidable circumstances which were beyond his control. Further from the
perusal of judgment Annexure P-4 dated 26.02.2019, it is evident that
Pardeep was finally acquitted in criminal case having FIR No.381 dated
21.11.2008 wherein Pardeep was earlier released on parole but he overstayed
said parole. From the perusal of impugned order Annexure P-5, it appears
that the same was passed by District Magistrate concerned in a mechanical
manner without taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances which
goes in favour of Pardeep as well as the present petitioner. In the light of the
aforesaid mitigating circumstances and further the petitioner being 75 years
of age, penalty of Rs.2 lacs imposed on petitioner by the District Magistrate,
Sonepat appears to be excessive and arbitrary and thus, is not sustainable and
deserves to be modified.
8. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, as are discussed above and to meet the ends of justice, it will be
appropriate if the aforesaid penalty is reduced to certain nominal amount.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is allowed to the
extent that the amount of penalty to be deposited by petitioner is reduced to
the nominal amount of Rs.7500/- in place of Rs.2 lac as was directed by
District Magistrate, Sonepat vide order Annexure P-5.
10. The present petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms with
direction to the petitioner to deposit aforesaid penalty of Rs.7500/- within a
period of next 2 weeks from today.
08.05.2024 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
