Allowed

Sudesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 May 2011CRM-M/15796/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge quashed an order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender. The petitioner, who had left India for the USA to claim asylum, argued his absence was not wilful. The court set aside the order and directed him to surrender within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 3.6.2000 set aside; petitioner directed to surrender within two months and be released on bail.

Sudesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl.Misc. No. M- 15796 of 2011 (O&M) (1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl.Misc. No. M- 15796 of 2011 (O&M)

¶4

Date of decision: 23^rd May, 2011.

Sudesh Kumar Sharma

......Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY.

¶11

PRESENT: Mr.Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate,with Mr.Vishal Deep Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Crl.Misc.No. 28341 of 2011

¶15

Crl.Misc.is allowed as prayed for.

¶16

Crl.Misc.No. M-15796 of 2011

¶17

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of Sudesh Kumar Sharma for quashing of order dated 3.6.2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra vide which he has been declared proclaimed offender in criminal Complaint No. 268/30.3.91/10.12.99 under Sections 177,179,181,182,205,417,420,465, 466,467,468,474 IPC.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner was granted bail and was attending Court proceedings regularly but due to certain compelling circumstances, he along with his family members left India on 14.3.2000 and subsequently the impugned PO order was passed in his absence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was away to USA and vide letter dated

¶19

(2)

¶20

Crl.Misc. No. M- 15796 of 2011 (O&M)

¶21

25.9.2001, he along with his family members was granted asylum by USA. Learned counsel also contends that the absence of the petitioner from the Court proceedings was neither wilful nor deliberate as under the compelling circumstances he left India and no efforts were made by the trial Court to effect any service upon him. Even in the impugned order, nowhere it is mentioned that he did not join the Court proceedings wilfully and avoided the Court proceedings deliberately, in any manner. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to surrender before the trial Court and join the Court proceedings.

¶22

Notice of motion. Notice has been accepted by Mr. S.S.Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana on the asking of the Court. Learned counsel for the State has not controverted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned PO order as well as other documents available on the file.

¶24

Admittedly, in this case the petitioner was earlier granted bail and was attending the Court proceedings regularly and when he left India for USA under the compelling circumstances, PO order was passed in his absence. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner avoided service of summons and his absence was wilful or deliberate in any manner.

¶25

In view of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner was not in India and PO proceedings were initiated in his absence, no efforts were made to effect any service and moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner absented himself willfully and avoided service of the summons in any manner, impugned order dated 3.6.2000 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court within a period of two months

¶26

Crl.Misc. No. M- 15796 of 2011 (O&M)

¶27

(3)

¶28

and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶29

Disposed of accordingly.

¶30

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶31

May 23, 2011 pooja

Sudesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Haryana and Anr.

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

Manjeet Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ano.

Arun Kumar etc. Vs Ut Administration, Chandigarh

Sonia & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sudesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Aarti & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Pooja & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.