Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sumit Alias Sumit Kanwal vs State Of Haryana on 6 November, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144371
CRM-M-45387-2024 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-45387-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 06.11.2024
Sumit @ Sumit Kanwal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.K. Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
CRM-42873-2024
For the reasons given in the application coupled with no
objection pleaded by the State counsel, the present application is allowed
and documents Annexure P-3 (collectively) are permitted to be taken on
record, subject to all just exceptions.
CRM-M-45387-2024
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 29.07.2017 Annexure
P-1 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat vide which
the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in a criminal case having
FIR No.491 dated 13.06.2015 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 332, 353, 186,
379, 427 IPC, Police Station Old Industrial, Panipat.
2. The counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the
petitioner left India in 2015 and is residing in USA. It is further submitted
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144371
CRM-M-45387-2024 [2]
that even in year 2017, when the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C were
initiated, the petitioner was not available in India and was living in USA. In
the present case, no notice or summon was sent to the petitioner through the
Indian Embassy situated in USA. Further, the impugned order was not
passed as per the statutory provision of Section 82 Cr.P.C, as minimum
prescribed period of 30 days for appearance of the petitioner from the date
of publication of proclamation was not provided by the Court concerned. It
is further argued that the co-accused who faced the trial, were acquitted vide
judgment dated 08.01.2020 Annexure P-2. It is further submitted that the
impugned order Annexure P-1 is not sustainable and deserves to be set
aside.
3. On the other hand, the State counsel submits that the impugned
order Annexure P-1 was passed in accordance with law and there is no
illegality in the same. It is further submitted that order Annexure P-1 was
passed on 29.07.2017 whereas the present petition to challenge the said
order is filed after gap of 7 years and that the present petition deserves to be
dismissed being devoid of merits.
4. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
parties.
5. From the perusal of the concerned documents, it appears that
the learned trial Court issued proclamation of the petitioner for 06.06.2017
vide order dated 28.04.2017. As per the statement dated 06.06.2017 of the
serving police official which was recorded by the Court concerned, it
appears that the said proclamation was executed on 03.06.2017 with
direction to appear before the Court concerned on 06.06.2017. Thus, the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144371
CRM-M-45387-2024 [3]
minimum statutory period of 30 days as prescribed under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
was not afforded to the petitioner for his appearance before the Court
concerned with effect from the date of publication of proclamation. Further,
it appears that the proclamation was not publicly read in some conspicuous
place of the town/village of the petitioner, as is required as per Section 82
(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C. Thus, it is evident that the impugned order Annexure P-1
was not passed by the Court concerned in accordance with the procedure
laid down in law. Accordingly, the impugned order is not sustainable in the
eyes of law. Admittedly, the petitioner has approached this Court after delay
of more than 7 years seeking quashing of impugned order Annexure P-1.
This Court is of the view that on account of said delay, the petitioner
requires to be burdened with cost.
6. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and impugned
order dated 29.07.2017 Annexure P-1 passed by the Court of Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat is hereby set aside, subject to cost of
Rs.10,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the District Legal
Services Authority concerned within a period of next 6 weeks.
06.11.2024 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
3 of 3
