Baldev Singh And ANR v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M No. 48330 of 2019 --1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.48330 of 2019

Reserved on: 09.09.2022

Pronounced on: 15.09.2022 Baldev Singh and another ......Petitioners Vs.

State of Punjab ......Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Avinash Mandla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Virat Rana, AAG, Punjab.

*** ANOOP CHITKARA J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 26.05.2017 Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala 323, 341, 452 & 34 IPC Seeking quashing of FIR and proclamation order dated 06-11-2018, passed by SDJM Sultanpur Lodhi, Annexure P-5, the accused has come up before this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). Vide order dated 14-11-2019, the petition for petitioner no. 2 was dismissed as not pressed, thus, the present adjudication is only for petitioner no. 1.

2.

Petitioner no. 1 was arraigned as an accused in the above captioned matter. On failure to serve the petitioner through the ordinary process, including summons, bailable warrants, and even non-bailable warrants, the concerned court finally proceeded against the petitioner under section 82 of Cr.P.C. and declared the petitioner a proclaimed offender vide order dated 06-11-2018, passed by SDJM, Sultanpur Lodhi, Annexure P-5. 3.

The point to which the petitioner wants to draw the attention of this court is that the absence was not willful, and was due to the factors beyond the petitioner's control. The State could not dispute the factual matrix. Learned counsel restrict his prayer only qua the quashing of order of proclamation only.

4.

The petitioner has filed an affidavit along with copy of his passport and Visas, to demonstrate that he had gone abroad on 02-11-2017, i.e., before the proceedings under JYOTI 2022.09.19 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No. 48330 of 2019 --2section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated and finalized. Its perusal substantiates the petitioner's stand. Given above, the petitioner has made a case on the preponderance of probability that the petitioner had no knowledge about summons, warrants, and appearance as contemplated under section 82 Cr.P.C. Thus, the order is arbitrary and did not afford reasonable opportunity as mandated under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.

5.

Consequently, the impugned order of proclamation order dated 06-11-2018, passed by SDJM, Sultanpur Lodhi, Annexure P-5, is set aside. Petition allowed in the terms mentioned above. Interim bail is made absolute. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 15.09.2022 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.

JYOTI 2022.09.19 14:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document