← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/41604/2022allowed

Lakhwinder Singh v. The Guruharshai Primary Co-Operative Agriculature Development Bank And ANR

2022-09-20Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Sr.No.113+275 CRM-M-41604-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.9.2022 Lakhwinder Singh Petitioner

Versus

The Guruharshai Primary Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank and another Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.KS Sidhu, Advocate for the respondent AMAN CHAUDHARY , J.

CRM-35230-2022 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Annexures P-10 to P12 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Main case Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of order dated 21.3.2022 and 2.5.2022, Annexure P-7 & P8, passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guru Harshai, whereby his bail bonds and surety bonds were cancelled, bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner issued and also the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated against him. Learned counsel contends that the case was petitioner had appeared before the trial Court after receipt of summons and kept regularly

appearing. Even his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 23.12.2021 and the case was adjourned to 20.1.2022. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 10.2.2022 for defence evidence, wherein the personal appearance of petitioner was exempted upon his filing an application for it. On the adjourned date i.e. 17.2.2022, the petitioner was unable to appear, consequently on 21.3.2022, non bailable warrants were issued against him, failing to still appear, the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Were initiated against the petitioner vide the impugned order 2.5.2022, the reason for non-appearance given by the petitioner in para 6 is that he had gone out of station to Madhya Pradesh to do some work and arrange the money to be returned to the Bank. Accordingly, he had deposited Rs.1,50,000/-, Annexure P9, with the bank on 24.6.

2022 through his father, who had taken the loan so that the matter can be settled. He also submitted that he is making all efforts to arrange the remaining money to be paid to the bank. He further submits that though, he had requested his learned counsel to file application for exemption, however, the same was not filed. He submits that the petitioner never had any intention to hide himself and the absence was only for arranging the money to remove the default status of his father, for which he went to Madhya Pradesh to do labour work. He also submits that he never been involved or convicted in any case.

    

          

             

   

  ! !"#$%%!$&$$$'

&# $&$$  ( 

)  ! !"*&&&!$&$$  ( 

* * $&$$

+                   , -      

                        

.  

 

!

 

  



  

    



 

/ 

        

      

  

     

 .0     !

     

   

 

            

    

$- "

$&$$ $ $&$$20

3!%3!#       .

  

     

   $"

* $&$$ 0    



     4

 

5

  

        

  

               

 

0  

  Before parting with this order, it is made abundantly clear that

in case the petitioner does not adhere to the aforesaid, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed without any reference to this Court. 20.9.2022 (AMAN CHAUDHARY) gsv JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking:

Yes /No Whether reportable:

Yes /No