Partly allowed

Som Nath v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Dec 2011CRM-M/1173/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings via Section 482 Cr.P.C. arguing an arbitration clause barred criminal liability. Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn with liberty to raise arguments later but exempted petitioner from personal appearance in trial court due to long delay.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty; personal appearance in trial court exempted subject to undertaking for attendance when required.

Som Nath Vs State of Punjab — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-1173 of 2008

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-1173 of 2008

¶5

Date of Decision: 9.12.2011

Som Nath

... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and Another

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

¶12

Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. S.S. Chandumajra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1.

¶14

None for respondent No.2.

¶15

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

¶16

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 36 dated 29.4.2003, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur, under Sections 406 and 409 IPC along with all subsequent proceedings.

¶17

In the present petition, an argument has been raised that since an agreement between the petitioner and Paddy Supplier contained arbitration clause, the petitioner cannot be fastened with criminal liability. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two Co-ordinate Single Benches of this Court have considered the grounds/arguments taken in

¶18

Criminal Misc. No. M-1173 of 2008

¶19

¶20

the present petition and held that criminal prosecution is not barred. Learned counsel further submits that Special Leave Petitions, filed against the judgments, have been dismissed. Therefore, learned counsel submits that he be permitted to withdraw the present petition with a liberty to raise all the arguments, available to him, before the trial Court at an appropriate stage.

¶21

As prayed, dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.

¶22

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since FIR, in the present case, was registered in the year 2003 and a period of more than 8 years is going to elapse, therefore, personal appearance of the petitioner, before the trial Court, may be exempted.

¶23

Taking long pendency of the trial into consideration, I find merit in the subsequent prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, personal appearance of the petitioner is exempted before the trial Court subject to filing an undertaking that he shall cause appearance as and when required and the evidence recorded in his absence but in the presence of his counsel shall be binding upon him. Trial Court may also specify any other condition in the undertaking to be furnished by the petitioner.

¶24

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge

¶25

December 9, 2011 “DK”

Som Nath v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Som Nath v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Sharma Vs State of Punjab

Jasbir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Guni Parkash and Anr. Vs State of Hry.

Anil Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Udham Singh @ Kaka Vs Cbi, New Delhi

Tarsem Kumar Vs State of Punjab