Allowed

Sukhwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Feb 2011CRM-M/5069/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court ordered the quashing of an order declaring the petitioners as proclaimed offenders, noting the order was passed without enquiry or service given their residence in Canada. The Court directed their surrender within two weeks and release on bail upon compliance.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside. Petitioners directed to surrender within two weeks; if they do, they shall be released on bail.

Sukhwinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl.Misc No M- 5069 of 2011(O&M)

¶2

Sukhwinder Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another

¶3

Present: Mr.Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***

¶4

ORDER

¶5

This petition has been filed on behalf of petitioners Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukhi and Kuldip Singh under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of impugned order dated 2nd March,2000 (Annexure P-3) vide which the petitioners have been declared Proclaimed Offenders.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are residing in Canada for the last more than 25 years and FIR No.42 dated 19.2.1999 under Sections 323/325/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar at their back. The petitioners were not aware with regard to the pendency of proceedings before the trial Court. The impugned order has been passed without conducting any enquiry and without effecting any service upon the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that no efforts were made by the trial Court to effect any service in any manner and the petitioners were not aware with regard to passing of the impugned order. Even it came to the knowledge of the learned trial Court at the time of effecting service that petitioners were away to Canada. Now the petitioners are ready to join court proceedings and moreover, compromise has been effected between the parties which is annexed as Annexure P-2 with the petition.

¶7

Crl.Misc No M- 5069 of 2011 [2]

¶8

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and have also perused the impugned order as well as other documents available on the file.

¶9

The impugned order has been passed without conducting any enquiry and no service was effected upon the petitioners. No finding has been given by the trial Court as to whether the petitioners have avoided any service or they remained absent and willfully did not receive the notices served upon them. Admittedly, the petitioners were away to Canada and even the FIR was registered at their back and they were not aware with regard to PO proceedings as well as passing of the impugned order. The impugned order has been passed at their back. The petitioners are ready to join the court proceedings.

¶10

In view of the facts mentioned above, the impugned order dated 2nd March, 2000 (Annexure P-3) deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the trial Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. In case, the petitioners surrender before the trial Court within the aforesaid period, they shall be released on bail by the trial Court on their furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to its satisfaction.

¶11

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶12

February 21, 2011 raghav

Sukhwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Jagjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sham Sunder Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sumit Sofat Vs State of Punjab

Gurudev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Dhanna Singh Vs State of Punjab

Priyanka & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.