Dismissed

Manjit Kaur v. Kulvinder

Punjab & Haryana HC2 May 2012CRM-M/10193/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an order allowing an appeal to proceed without the respondent-accused present. Finding that the accused's counsel represented him, the court held no mandatory bar on hearing in his absence.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit; the impugned order allowing the appeal to be heard in the absence of the respondent-accused was not interfered with.

Manjit Kaur Vs Kulvinder — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-10193 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-10193 of 2012

¶5

Date of Decision: 02.05.2012

¶6

Mrs. Manjit Kaur ....Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Kulvinder and another ....Respondents

¶9

CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶15

¶16

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)

¶17

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashing of the Order dated 01.02.2012 passed in Civil Appeal No.110 of 2010 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad arising out of complaint case No.994 dated 22.08.1987 titled as Mrs. Manjit Kaur vs. Kulvinder Singh filed under Sections 494/109/120-B IPC registered at Police Station City Ballabgarh.

¶18

While praying for setting aside the said Order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 390 of the Cr.P.C., the respondents were required to be present before the Court at the time of the hearing of their appeal before issuance of notice, as well as, at the time of final hearing of the appeal. It is further stated that this Court vide Order dated 14.12.2000 had directed the respondent No.1 to be

¶19

¶20

Crl. Misc. No.M-10193 of 2012

¶21

present before the Court. Since, he had refused to accept the service, bailable warrants were issued to all the accused.

¶22

The next argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad on an earlier occasion vide Order dated 24.11.2011 had directed the respondents to produce Kulvinder Singh but subsequently, the said Court took a somersault and vide Order dated 01.02.2012, the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad proceeded to fix the case for hearing in the absence of the respondents.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

Section 390 of the Cr.P.C reads as under :-

¶25

“390. Arrest of accused in appeal from

¶26

acquittal.- When an appeal is presented under section 378, the High Court may issue a warrant directing that the accused be arrested and brought before it or any subordinate Court, and the Court before which he is brought may commit him to prison pending the disposal of the appeal or admit him to bail.

¶27

It is evident from the perusal of the above Section that the presence of the accused is not mandatory as the words used are the “High Court may issue”. Moreover, the High Court while exercising the said discretion directed the respondent to be present vide Order dated 14.12.2000. Subsequently, in compliance to the said Order, the respondent-complainant was arrested and released on furnishing bail bonds (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, on account of the amendment in Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., the appeal was sent to the Additional Sessions Judge for hearing. The Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, no doubt, vide Order dated 24.11.2011 adjourned the matter to produce the respondent-complainant Kulvinder Singh but vide Order dated 01.02.2012,

¶28

Crl. Misc. No.M-10193 of 2012

¶29

¶30

the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad ordered the appeal to be heard in his absence as the counsel for the respondent expressed his willingness to argue the appeal in his absence and while passing the said order, reliance was placed on the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in the cases titled as Dr. R.V. Murthu vs. State of Maharashtra reported as 1981(4) Supreme Court Cases 157 and Rambachan Hardwar vs. The State of Gujarat reported as 1975(3) Supreme Court Cases 139.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any judgment to the contrary. As such, the respondent-accused having been acquitted by the trial Court, there is no bar to hearing of the appeal in his absence nor is it mandatory to force the presence of respondent. The only person who can be aggrieved against the appeal being heard in the absence of the accused is accused himself. In the present case, the learned counsel for the respondent has himself expressed his willingness to argue the appeal in the absence of the said accused. The respondent accused is duly represented through his counsel. As such, there is no ground to interfere in the Order dated 01.02.2012 passed in Civil Appeal No.110 of 2010 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad.

¶32

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of

¶33

merit.

¶34

(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE

¶35

02.05.2012 gurpreet

Manjit Kaur v. Kulvinder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjit Kaur v. Kulvinder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Bhartari Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Tara Chand Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ram Kishan Yadav Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Azad Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sher Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.