Jaspal Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another
-- 258 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 18.01.2023
....Petitioner
Versus
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :
Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
HARSH BUNGER, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the impugned order dated 03.12.2021 (Annexure P-3) passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patti, District Tarn Taran, vide which the bail bonds and surety bonds of the petitioner stands cancelled and forfeited to the State due to his non-appearance before the trial Court on the date fixed. Further prayer is for quashing of order dated 31.08.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patti, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P-5) vide which the warrants of attachment has been issued against the petitioner and also for setting aside the warrant of attachment dated 17.12.2022 (Annexure P-6) passed in complaint bearing NACT No.463 dated 13.11.2018 titled as "Shangara Singh Vs. Jaspal Singh" under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was granted bail vide order dated 07.12.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patti. He further submits that after getting the
-!- concession of bail, the present petitioner was regularly appearing before the trial Court. However, in the interregnum, due to Covid-19 pandemic, the hearing of the cases were restricted to extreme urgent cases as such the case involving petitioner stood adjourned to various dates by order. Ultimately, when the Courts started functioning, the case was fixed for hearing on various dates, but the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court and on account of non-appearance of petitioner, on dated 03.12.2021 nonbailable warrants were issued against the petitioner by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patti for 25.01.2022.
Learned counsel submits that there was no intention on the part of petitioner to delay the proceedings and his absence before the trial court was neither intentional nor deliberate but on account of communication gap between the petitioner and his counsel before Trial Court due to COVID-19 situation. Learned counsel further submits that in the present case the petitioner was never served with summons and in fact the matter between the complainant and petitioner already stands resolved and the complainant had assured the petitioner that as and when the courts resume working after COVID-19, he will withdraw his complaint. It is further submitted that the notices/ summons/ bailable warrants/ non bailable warrants were never served upon the petitioner and even the proclamation was not properly affected.
Learned counsel submits that even otherwise, a perusal of the order dated 03.12.2021 would show that the bail of the petitioner was never cancelled and only the bail bonds and surety bonds were ordered to be forfeited to the State. It is stated that the learned Trial Court has erred in issuing warrants of attachment for payment of Rs. 7.5 Lakhs whereas the Cheque amount in complaint is only Rs. 1.5 Lakhs.
-"- Instruments Act reads as under:- "It is, therefore, respectfully, prayed that the accused may kindly be summoned and punished according to law. The accused may further be directed to compensate the complainant for payment of amount of Cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- along with same amount of penalty plus expenses of litigation, in the interest of law and justice."
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to surrender before the trial Court and join the proceedings, if he be granted one opportunity to do so. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner undertakes to appear on each and every date before the trial court and to abide by all the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court or by the trial Court.
Learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioner raised in the instant petition by stating that he has jumped the bail and has not followed the conditions of bail, accordingly the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and prays for dismissal of this petition. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent/State and have also perused the paper book as well as the impugned order.
A perusal of order dated 03.12.2021 (Annexure P-3) reflects that the trial Court proceeded to pass the said order on account of absence of petitioner on 03.12.2021. It is observed that at times, the accused or his counsel can be prevented by sufficient reasons to put an appearance before the Court on a given date and every such absence cannot be necessarily
-#- construed as a deliberate and willful absence.
$%& '( )* ''
+,-!,+ .$$ ''/ $
0 / 1&$ ) $&* ' $*/ $$
& $ ( $ 2
!
"
#$
%
%
&
' % "
&
(( )(* % % % +,-
. / 0
.
-,1)2* -,3) *
%
. %
-,1)2* -,3) *
%
.
4
& --56
%
" %
& --56
%
( '
& --56
% 6
%
-3-
& --56
%
. 7
!!"# $%# &
0
%
%
9
&
%
8
' !!(# $%
(&
%
0 8
%
-,3) * % : % .
7
/
%
%
)
*
& --5
% ;
!
-4-
%
6
. #$
%
.
.
% .
6
%
(3
(+
%
%
%
%
'
% 7 !
/
$
!
%
- x - x -"
'
perusal of order dated 04.07.2022 would show that fresh proclamation was ordered against petitioner for 01.08.2022 and on 01.08.2022 the case was adjourned to 31.08.2022 as 30 days had not elapsed. Thus, it is apparent that 30 days clear notice was not issued in terms of Section 82 Cr.P.C. and hence, the petitioner was never declared PO, however vide order dated 31.08.2022 warrants of attachment was ordered to be issued, as per list of property. Keeping in view above-mentioned facts and circumstances and
--- also considering the submission of the petitioner that there was no intention on his part to remain absent, this Court is inclined to afford one opportunity to the petitioner to mend his ways. Moreover, joining of proceedings by the petitioner, would ensure finalization of proceedings. 11&)/5 '
orders dated 03.12.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patti and all consequential proceedings are set aside. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court within 30 days from this order by furnishing an undertaking before the trial Court that he will attend the Court proceedings regularly and will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and abide by all terms and conditions to be imposed by the trial Court. In case, the petitioner surrenders before the trial Court then he be released by the trial Court upon his furnishing fresh surety bonds/bail bonds to its satisfaction subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited in the concerned District Legal Services Authority.
However, the concerned Station House Officer shall be informed about the release of petitioner and the petitioner shall inform the concerned Station House Officer about his address at which he intends to reside during the pendency of case and any change in the address shall also be communicated to the concerned Station House Officer, forthwith. The petitioner would also furnish his telephone number to the concerned Station House Officer.
Disposed of in the above-said terms.
18.01.2023 (HARSH BUNGER) Amandeep JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No