Disposed

Bhajna Ram v. State of Punjab and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Jan 2011CRM-M/1852/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a CrPC petition seeking to quash an FIR and Protection Order against the petitioner, absent in Dubai. Finding no service was effected, the Court directed the petitioner to surrender for interim bail and ordered the trial court to complete the trial within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender; to offer bail bond and surety bond for immediate release; trial concluded within three months.

Bhajna Ram Vs State of Punjab and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl.Misc No M- 1852 of 2011 (O&M)

¶2

Bhajna Ram v. State of Punjab and another.

¶3

Present: Mr.Sandeep Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***

¶4

ORDER

¶5

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of petitioner Bhajna Ram for quashing of the FIR as well as order dated 5.5.2000 passed by the trial Court vide which PO proceedings have been initiated against him.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was residing in Dubai and was working there for the last many years. The petitioner came to India to attend the marriage of his son on 22^nd October, 1997 and left India for Dubai on 8th January, 1998 and since then he is residing there. The petitioner has no concern whatsoever with the matrimonial affairs of daughter of the complainant and he has falsely been implicated in the case. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that P.O. Proceedings were initiated against him and he was not aware with regard to those proceedings. He was neither served nor any effort was made by the trial Court to effect service upon him in any manner. Even co-accused of the petitioner have already been acquitted of the charges by the trial Court on 22^nd October, 2007 and petitioner is ready to surrender before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that nothing is mentioned in the order dated 5^th

¶7

Crl.Misc No M- 1852 of 2011 [2]

¶8

May, 2000 vide which he has been declared PO with regard to effecting any service and only it has been mentioned that petitioner was not present in spite of calling the case several times.

¶9

In view of submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner was away to Dubai and was not in India and no efforts were made by the trial Court to effect service upon him and no procedure has been adopted while declaring him PO. Moreover, the petitioner is ready to surrender before the trial Court. The petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall surrender before the trial Court and in case he surrenders, he shall be released on interim bail on his furnishing bail bond and surety bond to its satisfaction. The trial Court is also directed to conclude the trial within a period of three months thereafter.

¶10

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) January 20, 2011 JUDGE raghav

Bhajna Ram v. State of Punjab and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhajna Ram v. State of Punjab and Another

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

Shadi Lal Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Mandeep Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurdial Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Kamla Devi and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Surjit Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Poonam Rani & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.