Arjinder Singh v. State Of Punjab And ORS

-1CRM-M-7453 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-7453 of 2018 Date of decision: 31.10.2018 Arjinder Singh .........Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .........Respondents CRM-M-7610 of 2018 Arjinder Singh .........Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present:- None for the petitioner.

Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5 in CRM-M-7453 of 2018.

Mr. Nitin Thatai, Advocate, for respondent No.5 in CRM-M-7610 of 2018.

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) By this common order, I shall dispose of above titled-two petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to respondents No.1 to 4 to take legal action against respondent No.5, who is allegedly trying and making attempt to take away vehicles of the petitioner bearing registration Nos.PB11BN-6259 (in CRM-M-7453 of 2018) and PB11BU-1442 (in CRM-M-7610 of 2018).

Learned counsel for respondent No.5, in both the petitions, RAVINDER SINGH 2018.11.03 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document submits that petitioner Arjinder Singh is playing hide and seek with the

-2CRM-M-7453 of 2018 Court from the very date of filing the instant petitions, inasmuch as on the previous date, the petitioner was directed to bring an amount of `5.00 lakh in each case, but today none has appeared on his behalf. Similarly, on 16.07.2018, learned counsel for the petitioner had sought time to verify as to whether, petitioner had complied with order dated 22.02.2018, on which date interim order was passed in terms of CRM-M-33338 of 2016 vide which on 20.09.2016 the petitioner had undertaken to pay the interim amount in two instalments of 50% each and to deposit first instalment within one month and the remaining instalment in the next month. Till date, the petitioner has not complied with any of the orders passed in these petitions or in CRM-M-33338 of 2016.

Today, petitioner or his counsel has not turned up intentionally and deliberately. After perusal of file, I find force in the above submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.5. Consequently, both the petitions are dismissed for want of prosecution and in any eventuality shall not be restored, unless, petitioner deposits the entire due amount to be payable to respondent No.5 in Court along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of his undertaking dated 20.09.2016.

(Ramendra Jain) October 31, 2018 Judge R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2018.11.03 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document