Pramod Kumar v. State Of Punjab And Another

Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an Engineering graduate in the employment of renowned IT Company Infosys. Infosys has got an important project with Slater N.V. at Netherlands and vide assignment dated 19.5.2023 petitioner was asked by Infosys to work in a project namely STATMSWT. It is submitted that in pursuance of the same Infosys started Entry and Residence procedure on behalf of the petitioner on 23.5.2023 and the concerned Ministry of Netherlands has granted work permit visa vide letter dated 31.5.2023, translated copy of which is Annexure P-6. The

employer of the petitioner sought consent of the petitioner; whereafter the petitioner sought permission from ld. Trial Court to go to Netherlands for a period of two years by way of application dated 13.6.2023 (Annexure P-7) along with an undertaking that he shall have no objection if the prosecution evidence is recorded in his absence and the cross-examination is conducted by his counsel. It is submitted that it is this application which has been dismissed by the learned trial court vide the impugned order dated 25.7.2023.

Ld. Counsel submits that though, in the impugned order, the learned trial court has directed that the prosecution evidence be completed in one month, however, respondent No.2 is deliberately trying to delay the matter. It is pointed out that though respondent no.2 appeared on 13.6.2023 but she did not complete her examination-in-chief; and in fact, on 14.6.2023 itself respondent no.2 filed application (Annexure P-9) for issuance of directions to seize/attach the passport of the petitioner and also to issue look out notice to the concerned Embassy against the petitioner. Ld. Counsel contends that malafide intent of the respondent is evident from the above act of respondent No.2.

It is submitted that on 13.6.2023 ld. Trial Court had adjourned the case to 6.7.2023 for further examination-in-chief of the respondent no.2 as well as for reply to the application Annexure P-7. However, on 6.7.2023, respondent no.2 did not appear as recorded in the Zimni order dated 6.7.2023 (Annexure P-11); whereafter the case was adjourned to 11.7.2023 for recording further examination-in-chief and for arguments on the application. However, as is evident from the Zimni order dated 11.7.2023 (Annexure P-12), respondent no.2 did not appear on 11.7.2023 as well, and the matter stood adjourned to 13.7.2023. Though respondent no.2 appeared on 13.7.2023 but could not be examined at the request of ld. APP and the matter was adjourned to 18.7.2023 for recording the

statement of the respondent no.2. Again on 18.7.2023, respondent no.2 did not appear and the case was adjourned to 25.7.2023 vide order Annexure P-15.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on said date despite presence of the petitioner and his counsel, evidence of respondent no. 2 was deliberately avoided in order to protract the trial. It is submitted that vide impugned order dated 25.7.2023 (Annexure P-16) ld. Trial Court dismissed the application (Annexure P-7) of the petitioner seeking permission to visit Netherlands and for exemption of his personal appearance, without considering the facts of the case especially the fact that it is lifetime opportunity for the petitioner which will boost his career and will be financially beneficial especially for the welfare of the minor child and respondent no.2.

It is further submitted that vide impugned order dated 25.7.2023 though the ld. Trial Court directed the prosecution to conclude the evidence within one month and even the case was fixed for 28.7.2023 for further examination-in-chief of respondent no.2, however, even on the said date respondent no. 2 could not be examined as the ld. APP was on leave. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though initially the petitioner was given four weeks' time to give his consent, however, as the petitioner was unable to get the permission from the trial court in the said period, the employer granted another four weeks' time to him to give his consent which period would expire on 31.8.2023. It is submitted that accordingly the petitioner will be required to leave for Netherlands by 31.8.2023. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that besides lodging the aforesaid FIR, respondent no.2 has also filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as also another petition under Section 125 Cr.PC.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner reiterates that petitioner is

seeking exemption from personal appearance and also undertakes that he shall have no objection if the prosecution evidence is recorded in his absence and cross-examination is conducted by the counsel for the petitioner.

Ld. Counsel for complainant/respondent no.2 submits that petitioner is earning at least Rs. 1 lac per month, however, nothing is being paid by way of maintenance to the complainant and their minor child.

In response, ld. Counsel for the petitioner admits that the petitioner is earning about Rs.1.5 lakhs per month and submits that the petitioner is very mindful of his responsibility towards his minor child. And to show his bona fide the petitioner is willing to make an online deposit of a reasonable amount per month, as determined by this Court, in the account of the respondent. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further undertakes to immediately return in case the Trial Court deems/ directs that the petitioner's presence is necessary on any date. Ld. counsel for the petitioner further submits that in case petitioner is granted permission to visit Netherlands, as prayed for, petitioner is ready and willing to give an undertaking before the trial Court to return back to India, after the expiry of two years so granted, and surrender his Passport on or before 1.9.2025.

At this stage, ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 undertakes to provide bank account details of complainant/respondent no.2 to the counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day for the purpose of receiving maintenance amount. Ld. Counsel upon instructions from respondent No. 2, who is present in Court with her minor child, submits that respondent will be satisfied if an amount of Rs.30,000/- is deposited into her account every month by the petitioner.

I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties.

In view of the facts and circumstances as noticed above,

as also the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it is directed that the petitioner will bring a Demand Draft in favour of respondent No.2 for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs. One Lac, and Eighty Thousand only), as pre-deposit for the next six months (from 1.8.2023 till 31.1.2024 @ Rs. 30,000/- per month), on the next date of hearing. Thereafter, upon receipt of particulars of bank account of respondent no.2, the petitioner is directed to and undertakes to make an online deposit of Rs.30,000/- per month in the account of respondent No.2 by the 7th day of each calendar month.

Adjourned to 16.8.2023 for further consideration."