Dismissed

Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Aug 2011CRM-M/18103/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an order declaring him a proclaimed offender. The High Court dismissed the petition as the petitioner had concealed material facts regarding a previously rejected bail prayer, holding that a person with tainted hands is not entitled to concession.

What did the court decide?

The petition to quash the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender was dismissed with costs.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl.Misc.No.M-18103 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

Date of decision : 24.8.2011

Vinod Kumar

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present: Mr.J.S.Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.Arun Takhi, Advocate for the complainant.

¶12

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶13

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the order by which the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender in a case registered vide FIR No.9 dated 10.2.2009 under Sections 406/420/120B IPC at Police Station Gardhiwal, Distt. Hoshiarpur.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 82 of the Code to state that the procedure prescribed therein has not been followed and, therefore, the proclamation and the consequent order deserve to be quashed.

¶15

This matter was taken up on 26.7.2011 on which date it was adjourned for today on the request made by the learned counsel

¶16

Crl.Misc.No.M-18103 of 2011 (O&M) -2-

¶17

for the petitioner.

¶18

Mr.Arun Takhi, Advocate, who has appeared for the complainant, has stated that the petitioner is concealing the material facts from this Court. On 16.12.2009 the prayer of the petitioner for pre-arrest bail was declined by passing the following order :-

¶19

“On the last date of hearing, a direction was issued by this Court that the tractor be got recovered before the next date of hearing. A perusal of the F.I.R. Clearly indicates that the petitioner was the person, who had taken the tractor from the possession of the complainant for getting it repaired as it was found that there was some manufacturing defect in the tractor. Therefore, in the light of the fact that the recovery has not been effected till date of tractor, of which possession was taken by the petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.

¶20

Dismissed.”

¶21

He states that this fact was never disclosed to this Court as also before the learned Sessions Judge before whom a fresh application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. had been filed which has since been accepted. The reason for filing the subsequent bail application is ostensibly the order dated 24.7.2011 in which this Court observed as follows :-

¶22

“I have gone through the allegations against the petitioner in the FIR. The petitioner is directed to avail the remedy under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is ordered

¶23

Crl.Misc.No.M-18103 of 2011 (O&M) -3-

¶24

that in case the petitioner files an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the order dated 30.05.2011, will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner, in any manner. On appraisal of the material which has been produced

¶25

before this court, I am of the opinion that the petitioner certainly has concealed the material facts. He has nowhere stated that on a prior occasion his prayer for pre-arrest bail had been declined and that too for a reason that he had defied the directions given by this Court and did not assist the prosecution in recovering the tractor which was in his possession.

¶26

Grant of bail and especially a pre-arrest bail is a matter of discretion by the Court to be exercised in favour of a person who seeks it, provided his bona fides stand established, but a person who conceals material facts from the court ought not to be granted such indulgence. Be that as it may, it is open to the complainant to have recourse to the proper remedy available to him in view of a subsequent order having come into existence vide which the petitioner has been granted pre-arrest bail. For the purposes of this petition, since the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, I am of the opinion that the petition deserves to be dismissed solely on this ground in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ramjas Foundation and another v. Union of India and others , 2011(1) RCR (Civil) 176 that a person approaches the court with tainted hands, does not deserve any concession.

¶27

Consequently, the petition is dismissed with costs of

¶28

Crl.Misc.No.M-18103 of 2011 (O&M) -4-

¶29

Rs.20,000/- to be paid before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre

¶30

of this Court.

¶31

24.8.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss

Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amrik Singh and Anr. Vs Malkiat Singh and Anr.

Parveen Kumari and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Amarjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Raj Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Amandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ramandeep Singh @ Lucky and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.