Allowed

A.C. Karthikeyan v. State of Haryana etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Oct 2011CRM-M/11551/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside an order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender. Having appeared before the trial court and furnished bail bonds in compliance with a stay order, the petitioner was allowed to continue appearing in trial.

What did the court decide?

The order declaring the petitioner as a Proclaimed Offender was set aside. The petitioner was directed to continue appearing before the trial Court.

A.C. Karthikeyan Vs State of Haryana etc. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M- 11551 of 2011 Date of decision : 14.10.2011

A.C. Karthikeyan

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana etc.

¶7

....Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶9

Present: Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana for the State.

¶11

RANJIT SINGH, J.

¶12

Noticing the facts in detail, this Court on 25.04.2011 directed that the PO proceedings against the petitioner be kept in abeyance. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that he was declared Proclaimed Offender without effecting service on him and he was never served at the address given in the complaint. The PO proceedings in progress against the petitioner were ordered to be kept in abeyance with liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court with further direction to the trial Court to release the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to its satisfaction.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioner submits that complying with the directions of this Court, the petitioner had appeared before the trial Court on 27.04.2011. The petitioner has prayed for bail and has been granted bail in terms of the order passed by this Court. The petitioner

¶14

Crl. Misc. No. M- 11551 of 2011

¶15

-2-

¶16

has already furnished the bail bonds. Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to appear regularly before the trial court in future and would fail at his own peril. Since the petitioner is now participating in trial and the fact that he was not properly served at the address given in the complaint, no case is made out for allowing the order declaring the petitioner as Proclaimed Offender to continue. The same order is, accordingly, set aside. The petitioner, however, would continue to appear before the trial Court regularly without fail. The petitioner would be at liberty to raise all these pleas raised for quashing of the complaint and the summoning order. The petitioner may move an application seeking exemption from appearance, which shall be considered by the court concerned in accordance with law.

¶17

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of in the above

¶18

terms.

¶19

October 14, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE

A.C. Karthikeyan v. State of Haryana etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.C. Karthikeyan v. State of Haryana etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bimla Gupta & Ors. Vs Ashim & Ors.

Dara Singh Vs Pb.State

Shilpa Aggarwal @ Sweta Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mahavir etc. Vs State of Pb.Etc.

Jagdev Singh Vs U.O.I.Etc

Ajay Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Ors.