Disposed

Tarsem Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Dec 2011CRM-M/49205/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Miscellaneous petition regarding quashing of charges and dismissal of appeal, petitioner moved for exemption from personal appearance citing long pendency. The court exempted personal appearance contingent on an undertaking for future appearances as required, allowing evidence recorded in absence to bind him.

What did the court decide?

Personal appearance exempted subject to undertaking; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise arguments before trial court.

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

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-49205 of 2007

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-49205 of 2007

¶5

Date of Decision: 9.12.2011

Tarsem Kumar

... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Punjab

... Respondent

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

¶12

Present: Mr. R.S. Rangpuri, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. S.S. Chandumajra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent.

¶14

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 11.5.2006 (Annexure P2), whereby the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar, has framed charges against the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 IPC and order dated 12.12.2006 (Annexure P4), passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Muktsar, whereby the revision petition, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed.

¶16

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.

¶17

Criminal Misc. No. M-49205 of 2007

¶18

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two Co-ordinate Single Benches of this Court have considered the grounds/arguments taken in 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.

¶20

As prayed, dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.

¶21

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since FIR, in the present case, was registered in the year 2004 and a period of more than 7 years is going to elapse, therefore, personal appearance of the petitioner, before the trial Court, may be exempted.

¶22

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.

¶23

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge

¶24

December 9, 2011 “DK”

Tarsem Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarsem 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

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

Som Nath Vs State of Punjab

Udham Singh @ Kaka Vs Cbi, New Delhi