Allowed

Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Jan 2011CRM-M/517/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a petition to quash an order declaring petitioner a proclaimed offender under Section 498-A IPC as mandatory service provisions were not followed. Court directed petitioner to surrender for bail and trial court to conclude proceedings within six months.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of order declaring petitioner a proclaimed offender; direction to surrender for bail; order to complete trial within six months.

Karnail Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

(1)

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-517 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-517 of 2011 (O&M)

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 07.01.2011

Karnail Singh

..........Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab & Anr.

¶10

..........Respondents

¶11

BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

¶15

Crl. Misc. No. 904 of 2011

¶16

Application is allowed as prayed for.

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-517 of 2011

¶18

The present petition has been filed on behalf of petitionerKarnail Singh for quashing of FIR No. 90 dated 4.6.2002 under Sections 498-A/506 IPC at Police Station Balachaur and order dated 2.1.2003 passed by learned trial Court and all consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was on bail and during the pendency of the trial, he went abroad. Vide order dated 2.1.2003, he was declared proclaimed offender without following the mandatory provisions warranted under the law, whereas, no service was effected upon him and no efforts were made by the trial Court to serve him in any manner. All proceedings were conducted in the

¶20

Crl. Misc. No. M-517 of 2011 (O&M)

¶21

(2)

¶22

absence of the petitioner and he was not aware with regard to those proceedings as he was in abroad. Learned counsel further contends that co-accused of the petitioner were convicted by trial Court vide judgment dated 9.11.2006 but they were acquitted by the appellate Court vide its judgment dated 24.9.2009. Learned counsel also contends that the allegations against the petitioner are same as to the other accused. Moreover, there was no willful absence on the part of the petitioner as he was not aware with regard to P.O. proceedings. It has wrongly been mentioned in the order dated 2.1.2003 that the petitioner avoided the service. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to join the Court proceedings.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

¶24

record.

¶25

The mandatory provisions of law have not been followed and the petitioner was not aware with regard to the P.O. proceedings initiated against him as he was never served by the trial Court. Moreover, no efforts were ever made to serve him at the address where he was residing and there was no willful intention on the part of the petitioner to avoid service or to remain absent from the Court proceedings.

¶26

The petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall surrender before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and in case he surrenders before the trial Court and furnishes adequate bail bond and surety bond to its satisfaction, he shall be admitted to bail. The petitioner is also directed to move an application for recalling of the order declaring him Proclaimed Offender and to explain the circumstances for remaining absent from trial and that application shall be considered and disposed of by the trial Court in accordance with law.

¶27

However, keeping in view the facts as mentioned above, the

¶28

(3)

¶29

Crl. Misc. No. M-517 of 2011 (O&M)

¶30

trial Court is directed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably

¶31

within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶32

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶33

January 07, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE

¶34

Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No

Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab 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

Bhado Devi & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

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

Jaideep Singh Virk Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Balvir Singh @ Bira Vs State of Punjab

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

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