Allowed

Ranjit Kumar Alias Ghukka v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Sept 2024CRM-M/43414/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, declared proclaimed offender in a 2013 FIR, sought quashing of the 2014 proclamation order under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court directed him to surrender by 12.09.2024 with warrants stayed; on surrender the proclamation stands automatically quashed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ranjit Kumar Alias Ghukka Vs State of Punjab and… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

��

¶2

121-A IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M No. 43414 of 2024 Date of Decision: 05.09.2024

¶4

Ranjit Kumar @ Ghukka

¶5

...Pe%%oner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and others …Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶9

Present: Mr. Puneet Singla, Advocate for the pe%%oner.

¶10

Ms. Swa% Batra, D.A.G., Punjab (through V.C.).

¶11

Mr. Vinay Puri, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

¶12

¶13

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶14

FIR No.	Dated	Police Sta%on	Sec%ons
48	02.05.2013	Goraya, District	307, 326, 324, 148, 149 IPC
		Jalandhar

¶15

Challenging the order dated 19.02.2014 passed by Addi%onal Sessions Judge, Jalandhar declaring the accused as proclaimed person, he has come up before this court under Sec%on 482 CrPC for its quashing.

¶16

The pe%%oner was on bail in this case but he absented without in%ma%on and he was summoned through non-bailable warrants. The concerned court finally proceeded against the pe%%oner under sec%on 82 of CrPC and declared the pe%%oner a proclaimed offender vide order dated 19.02.2014, passed by Addi%onal Sessions Judge, Jalanadhar, Annexure P-2.

¶17

The reason for not appearing before the court is men%oned in para no.7 of the pe%%on that the pe%%oner was told by the Advocate of co-accused that there was no need for him to appear as no charges are levelled against him. Even if the pleadings are taken to be correct and accurate even on the face value, s%ll it is not a sa%sfactory explana%on and there was no reason for him not to aGend the trial, however pe%%oner’s conduct of approaching this Court would be a ground to exercise

¶18

¶19

Jyoti Sharma 2024.09.06 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

¶20

��

¶21

the judicial discre%on. Pe%%oner’s case is that he was unaware of the proclama%on order. Even if this Court would like to exercise the discre%on on this ground, then it is subject to pe%%oner demonstra%ng his inten%ons not to evade the trial and to appear on each and every date.

¶22

The primary object of service is to secure the accused's presence in trial. The pe%%oner has approached this court on its own, establishing the bonafide at this stage. Without commen%ng on the case's merits, and in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and also for the reasons men%oned above, the ends of jus%ce would meet. Furthermore, without adjudica%ng the maintainability of this pe%%on under sec%on 482 CrPC and leaving that ques%on open; given the explana%on offered by the accused coupled with the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, a balanced approach would work as an incen%ve, a catalyst, speeding up the process, and bringing the guilty to Jus%ce and Jus%ce to the guilty. Thus, exercising the inherent powers under sec%on 482 CrPC, this court deems it appropriate to grant the following limited relief to the pe%%oner, subject to compliance with the condi%ons men%oned in this order.

¶23

The pe%%oner is directed to surrender before the concerned court on or before 12.09.2024 by 2 PM and avail legal remedy available to him. Till 12.09.2024 by 5PM all warrants, if any issued pursuant to impugned order, shall remain stayed and this order shall eclipse automa2cally on 12.09.2024 at 5 PM. Thus, the proclama2on order dated 19.02.2014 shall stand quashed automa2cally the moment pe22oner surrenders before the concerned Court. If he fails to surrender, then the proclama2on order shall stand as it is and the order of stay shall also stand re-called.

¶24

The pe%%oner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in the account of Poor Pa2ent Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh and hand over its receipt to the trial court.

¶25

Any observa%on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶26

There would be no need for a cer�fied copy of this order, and any Advocate for the Pe��oner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and a�est it to be a true copy. In case the a�es�ng officer wants to verify the authen�city, such an officer can also verify its authen�city and may download and use the downloaded copy for a�es�ng bonds.

¶27

¶28

Jyoti Sharma 2024.09.06 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

¶29

��

¶30

Pe22on allowed to the extent and subject to the condi2ons men2oned above . All pending applica%ons, if any, stand disposed.

¶31

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 05.09.2024 Jyo% Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶32

¶33

Jyoti Sharma 2024.09.06 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

Ranjit Kumar Alias Ghukka v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ranjit Kumar Alias Ghukka v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gori Shankar Vs State of Haryana and Other

Raj Kumar Nagar Vs Brahampal

Manmohan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another

Saloni and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Yashwant Singh Verma Vs State of Haryana and Others

Siddharth Chaturvedi Vs State of Haryana and Anr.