S. Kishore Alias Sethuraman Kishore And Another v. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 10.04.2023 S.Kishore @ Sethuraman Kishore and another .....Petitioners
Versus
Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present:
Mr.Vikram K. Chaudhri, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Keshvam Chaudhri, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate for complainant-respondent AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 read with Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside and quashing of order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana in CRM No.25 of 2020 in Criminal Complaint No.COMI-618-2021 titled as Nahar Industrial vs. V.S. Lignite Powers and others, and order dated 13.01.2022 passed in the aforementioned criminal complaint. Learned Senior counsel submitted that the learned trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the application for grant of exemption from personal appearance without considering that the petitioners, 59 and 57 years old respectively, are suffering from varied diseases including hypertension, coronary artery diseases, hypothyroidism and dyslipidaemia, in addition, petitioner No.2 is stated to also having type-2 diabetes mellitus and are under treatment of the cardiology department at AIG Hospital, Hyderabad. He further submitted that the
non bailable warrants have been issued without following the proper procedure, after dismissal of their application seeking personal exemption from appearance before the Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that impugned orders have been rightly passed by the trial Court, thus, he prayed for the dismissal of the present petition.
Heard.
It is apposite to make a reference to order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the trial Court, the relevant of which reads thus:-
!"#$
%& '&
&(
)
&" ! * " + , ! - .
/ 0 1
2 $
$ #
3% " . 5 . ) $ 6
)
2 $
7 $
&&&8 The order dated 13.01.2022 is also required to be referred to, which reads thus:- ( )
&
& .
.
4&
*& #
'& 9&
)
)
&(
3& &
%& &
3& &
3& &
:
3& &
& ;
)
&
&
&
2&
&
&8 Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, 2007 (12) SCC 1, held thus: "55 In complaint cases, at the first instance, the Court should direct serving of the summons along with the copy of the complaint. If the accused seem to be avoiding the summons, the Court, in the second instance should issue bailable warrant. In the third instance, when the Court is fully satisfied that the accused is avoiding the Court's proceeding intentionally, the process of issuance of the non-bailable warrant should be resorted to. Personal liberty is paramount, therefore, we caution Courts at the first and second instance to refrain from issuing non-bailable warrants."
A perusal of the order dismissing the application for grant of exemption reveals the same having been passed by adopting proper procedure and also in consonance with the aforesaid judgment. The very purpose of issuance of summons, warrants, taking out proceedings of proclamation etc. is to compel and secure the presence of the accused to face trial and establish the rule of law so as to ensure finalization of the proceedings.
In view of the above, the impugned orders have been rightly passed by the Magistrate. As such the present petition is dismissed. However, on anvil of the facts, upon which the exemption was sought from personal appearance, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to have joined the proceedings, before they made the said prayer. In case the petitioners surrender, and file an application for grant of bail, the same shall be decided on the same day. For the subsequent dates, in case
an application seeking personal exemption is filed, the same shall be considered accordingly.
Disposed of.
10.04.2023 [AMAN CHAUDHARY] gsv JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No