Mukhtiar Singh v. State Of Haryana

  

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
  

Date of decision: 16.02.2023 MUKHTIAR SINGH ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :

Mr. Manpreet Ghuman, Advocate



   

 
 

 

***** AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.

The present petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned order dated 12.04.2022, Annexure P-6, passed by SDJM, Pehowa vide which the recovery warrants against the petitioner was issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had stood surety for Khushdeep Singh, who did not appear before the Court on 21.09.2019 but subsequently with earnest efforts of the petitioner he had surrendered on 25.09.2019 and thereafter, was granted concession of regular bail. Thereafter, he continued to appear before the Court on regular basis. These subsequent facts have not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order by the trial Court while issuing recovery warrants against the petitioner. Still further, now the said accused-Khushdeep Singh has also passed away on 30.08.2022. As a matter of fact even the FIR which was registered againsthim, had been quashed by this Court by way of compromise between the parties in CRM-M-34857 dated 12.09.2022.

Learned State counsel submits that notice was correctly issued to the petitioner as Khushdeep Singh had not appeared before the Court and had SANDAL SHARMA 2023.03.04 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

  

-2absented himself before the Court. The petitioner, being surety, was responsible for the same. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to accused Khusdeep Singh having surrendered and subsequently granted bail and FIR stands quashed on the basis of compromise.

Heard.

Admittedly, the petitioner was the surety of one accused-Khushdeep Singh, who had absented from the Court on one date i.e. 21.09.2019, however, he with the earnest efforts of the petitioner surrendered on 25.09.2019 and continued to appear thereafter. The learned trial Court while issuing recovery warrants ought to have taken into consideration the aforesaid facts. The said accused has since even passed away and the FIR in question has also been quashed on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and bearing in mind the law laid down by Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and others,


 

 
 

!  "

# "


#  


  
$
% &
'

'




#



 
 
  
  
 (

'
&&%


)# 


%& !
%

# 
*
+

 & &

  
  

&&%
 

! "




* ,

*,**


) 
+-.

'

 

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 16.02.2023 Mehak /S.Sharma(syr) Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No SANDAL SHARMA 2023.03.04 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment