Held that in a family dispute case where the accused is abroad and L.O.C was already issued no further directions were required under Section 482 CrPC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page 1 of 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
107 CRM-M-8974-2024(O&M)
Date of order: 10.05.2024
Indu Chadha
…..Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of UT, Chandigarh & Others
…..Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:Ms.Promila Nain, Advoca t e Ms. Shivani Bansal, Advo c ate for the petitioner.
Mr. Manish Bansal, PP U T Chandigarh with Ms. Diksha Sharma, Adv o cate
***** Nidhi Gupta, J.
Petition under Section 4 82 of the Criminal Procedur e
Code is file d seeking issuance of appropriate directions or order to th e respondents and the learned trial Co u rt/Illaqa Magistrate to tak e appropriate steps to arrest/execute non-b a ilable warrants and secure th e presence of the accused Bhanu Singh Walia s/o Satwinder Singh Walia , resident of 8 /40 Tryon Street Upper Moun t Gravatt 4122, Australia, in FI R No.71 date d 20.10.2020 under Section 4 06, 498-A IPC Women Polic e Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh (Annexure P- 1 ).
2. Learned counsel for the p etitioner inter alia submits tha t although FI R was registered as far back as in the year 2020, however, til l date no efforts whatsoever have been mad e by the respondent-authoritie s for securing the presence of the accused. In this regard, learned counse l
SUNENA 2024.05.14 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Page 2 of 6
refers to zi m ni order dated 17.09.2022 passed by learned CJJD/RC/JMIC , which is rep r oduced hereinbelow:-
“Present: APP for the State.
Warrants of arrest against the accused received bac k unexecuted. No fresh request h a s been moved by the IO for re - issuance of non bailable warra n ts of arrest of accused person. As such, no further order in this regard is required to be passed. Therefore, papers are directed to be attached with the recor d of the main case.”.
“3. That after the registration o f FIR the investigation was pu t into motion. During the course of investigation a notice unde r section 41-A of Cr.P.C. was s erved upon both the accuse d Satwinder Singh (father-in-law ) and Surinder Kaur (mother-in -
SUNENA 2024.05.14 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Page 3 of 6
law) but they did not appear & on dt 01.09.2021 A/C bai l granted to them by Hon'ble P b & HR High Court. The du o accused were formally arreste d on 2.10.2021 and thereafter, both the accused were release d on bail. A notice under sectio n 41-A of Cr.P.C. was also i ssue d against accused Bhanu Sing h through whatsapp on his A ustralia mobile number o n 19.12.2020. However, the acc u sed Bhanu Singh could not b e arrested because the accuse d is a resident of Brisbaine, Australia. It would be pertinen t to mention that the daughte r of the petitioner at the time of marriage was persuing he r studies at New Zealand. Tha t after the intervention of th e parents of both the families, t h e marriage was solemnized o n 17.1.2019 at Wedlock ,Zirakp u r. After the solemnization o f marriage the daughter of peti t ioner and Son-in-law left fro m India to Australia on 25.01.201 9 .
4. That after the completio n of Investigation, the polic e presented challan against Sat w inder Singh and Surinder Kau r on 12.10.2022 i.e. Father-in-Law and Mother-in-law of th e petitioner's daughter and acco r dingly charges were framed o n 21.02.2023 against them. It is further submitted that th e accused Bhanu Singh could not be arrested in the instant FIR a s at the time of the registration of FIR he was in Australia an d never returned back to India ti l l date. It would be pertinent t o mention that the investigation agency has also obtained non - bailable warrants of arrest thr i ce of the accused Bhanu Singh, however, he could not be arrested. Thereafter, LOC was issue d against the accused Bhanu S i ngh. The Investigation Agenc y tried their best to arrest the ac c used Bhanu Partap but he coul d not be arrested despite as the A ccused Bhanu Singh is residin g in Australia presently.
5. That as per provisions of Section 16 of the Extradition Act, 1962, any Magistrate may is s ue a provisional warrant of a
SUNENA 2024.05.14 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Page 4 of 6
f ugitive criminal from any (for e ign state) to which this chapte r applies who is, or suspected to be, in or on his way to India, o n such information and under such circumstances as would, in hi s opinion, justify the issue of a w arrant, if the offence of whic h the fugitive criminal is accused or has been convicted had bee n committed within his jurisdict i on and such warrant may b e executed accordingly. Section 16 of the Extradition Act, 1962 i s reproduced herein under:-
" Section 16. Provisional warrant for apprehension of fugitive criminal .-(1) A ny magistrate may issue a provisional warrant for t he apprehension of a fugitiv e criminal from [any forei g n] State to which this Chapte r applies who is, or is suspected to be, in or on his way t o India, on such informatio n and under such circumstance s as would, in his opinion, j ustify the issue of a warrant, i f the offence of which th e fugitive criminal is accused o r has been convicted ha d been committed within hi s jurisdiction and such warrant may be execute d accordingly.
(2) A magistrate issuin g a provisional warrant shal l forthwith send a repor t of the issue of the warran t together with the inform a tion or a certified copy thereo f to the Central Governme n t, and the Central Governmen t may, if it thinks fit, disc h arge the person apprehende d under such warrant.
(3) A fugitive criminal a pprehended on a provisiona l warrant may, from time to time, be remanded for suc h reasonable time, not ex c eeding seven days at any on e time, as under the circu m stances seems requisite for th e production of an endorse d warrant."”
SUNENA 2024.05.14 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Page 5 of 6
the case file in great detail.
SUNENA 2024.05.14 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Page 6 of 6
home. It ha s also to be noted that presen t FIR was not registered on th e basis of stat e ment of the alleged victim, b u t it was registered on the basi s of statemen t of mother of the alleged victi m i.e. the present petitioner.
11. Pending application(s) if a ny also stand(s) disposed of.
10.05.2024 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No
SUNENA 2024.05.14 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether directions for the arrest of an accused abroad residing overseas were necessary under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the failure of issuance of Notice under Section 41-A CrPC prevented the disposal of the petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CRM-M-2647-2024Referred¶37
6 provisions across 5 enactments
Indu Chadha
State of UT, Chandigarh
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
