Harmandeep Singh Toor v. State Of Punjab And Others
!"#!$%&%"'())
!! "#$# !!
$&'
#
# !# ( *+,) , ,-
.!&!' ( # ( )$* (+ ,!
-$&!
* (+ ,!
. /$,01* (+ ,!
)2!
34* 5(-* $&'
,- /)
+
01 +!$
#!
2,! * 2,!
1# 2,
, ,$!# (7$
# + * 2,! 22 4 ,$!# !0
, #$'&,!
22 &$#!
7,!
1.
Present petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by petitioner through his GPA holder, praying therein that Calendra No.182 of IPC dated 09.11.2017 registered as CHI 312 dated 29.11.2017 be quashed. Petitioner has also assailed the legality of the order dated 20.11.2019 (Annexure P-8) passed by the then ACJM, Sangrur, vide which he (P) was declared as 'Proclaimed Person'.
2.
/ $#2 #$'!# ! petitioner and his parents were falsely summoned in the Calendra u/s 182 IPC. Parents of the petitioner, who were in India, appeared before the Court and were granted the concession of bail by the learned ACJM, Sangrur vide order dated 06.02.2018. On the next date of hearing, summons issued to procure presence of the petitioner, which were received back with the report that he is residing in New Zealand. The Investigating Officer 4# ,!
%292,
, 7,!
##
4 :2 While referring to the copies of the interim orders appended along with the case file, learned counsel contends that the case remained pending for said purpose for several dates. There is nothing on record to indicate that correct address of petitioner, who was stated to be residing in New Zealand, was ever furnished. In routine, fresh non-bailable warrants were issued to procure presence of the petitioner for 01.03.2019. Thereafter, the case also remained pending for adjudicating of application u/s 311 Cr.PC, which was finally allowed on 11.06.2019. On the next date of hearing i.e. 02.08.
2019 without there being any specific report that the petitioner is intentionally avoiding to appear before the Court, learned JMIC concluded that the presence of the petitioner could not be procured through ordinary process and initiated proclamation proceedings for 30.08.2019. On the said day i.e. 30.08.2019 the case was again adjourned to 02.09.2019 regarding statement of serving constable and for consideration on charge. In the order dated 02.08.2019, no date was given by learned Magistrate for appearance of the petitioner-accused. The case was adjourned to 30.08.2019, when statement of executing constable was not recorded and the case was simply adjourned to 02.09.2019. Perusal of the statement of the executing constable recorded on 02.09.
2019 reveals that the executing constable also did not mention as to when specifically he had visited the house of the petitioner.
Learned counsel further submits that when there was a specific report with the learned Magistrate that petitioner has left for New Zealand, it was incumbent on the part of the learned Magistrate to procure the presence of the petitioner in accordance with the provision of Section 105 Cr.PC ,!
3.
$#*
%,
!* ,2!
!
;
'
24* 222 8!
%$!
!!
$#2 4!
!$ ',0
8 & ,# / $#2 %$!
!!#
8* , 4+*
<$#!# 1 021 <$! !,!
#!* '1 '2
,
#$'##
'
$#2 #$'!# 2!
!0 %+ $
#!
*
$!0#
3% , %$!
* 2!
$# ,%$221
$
,!
* ,
# $=
!!
"
!
! #
"
!$"
$"
! "
!!
% ! &
'
!$"
!() *
"
"
% #
( &
' % !!
"
) "
" !!
+(
!!
!
% ,- , (
!!
!
% - .
/"
"
%
!!
! $"
!0)1 ,#
* !!21* !
4# !!
2%!
2 +!$2!1* #
+
,$ #
#,' $ ,!
* !
'2'2 4!# 4 !21 ##$
#!2 ##
8 '# $ !
'2'2 4!#
' ,+ ',0 $7,$!* #$ 2'!21 $#* ,2! ,# 4 !!
> ;
(# ! '
#
!
# 2
+2 7,$! #!'2 +#!
$#
8
> ;
$#*
1# ! 4#
$!
, !
$'2,! ,* + <$!
,! > 4# 2
?
4!
2,
,$ #
!
2 ,$* ,2!
!
;
'1 #!
#
1 '1 $#2* $2
%,!
1 422
!$
8
,* !* $21
'&,!
,2 1 # 2/! / 34 1
#,$
#, %, !2* # !
!
!
!$!1
,
21 $!
!22 #!
# 22 #!1
# 22 #! ( !
,* $
+2 ' 4+* !
,2% % # !* 21
% # ,! , $!
#!$2! * !,!
#!*
'
# 22 #! +,!*
$!
1 %$!
%,
8!
2#
,2% !
#$#*
! ! !,! ,#
!* $ * , # 22 , %$!
,, ,
24 .
'#+!
'
+ # 22
+ 1 '
!#
'2 2,! * ,
# 22 ,* 24 (,, 21* #!!
#!# # #
,-
)) /"
5 @ !
#09# =A#9.
@ !
!'2 =A#9.