Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gaurav Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 22 February, 2012
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
CRM-M-35784 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-35784 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: February 22, 2012
Gaurav Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate for the complainant.
Rajan Gupta, J.
The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking setting-aside of order dated 14.11.2011, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is absolutely unsustainable. Various inquiries were pending in the matter and petitioner was associating with the same. Thus, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.
Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer. He has submitted that petitioner moved the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar for pre-arrest bail but the same was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed a similar petition before this court. Said petition was dismissed as withdrawn on March 28, 2011. Yet the CRM-M-35784 of 2011 2 petitioner never submitted himself before the investigating agency. Application was, thus, moved for declaring him a proclaimed offender. The petition is without any merit and deserves to be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
It appears that petitioner had moved an application for pre- arrest bail in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar which was dismissed on 16th March, 2011. Thereafter, he moved a similar petition before this court which was dismissed by a coordinate bench of this court (S.S. Saron, J.) on March 28, 2011 and following order was passed:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the case for considerable length submits that he may be allowed to withdraw this petition.
Dismissed as withdrawn."
The petitioner thereafter, moved another pre-arrest bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, which was dismissed on 14th July, 2011. He then moved this court again for pre- arrest bail vide CRM-M-34012 of 2011, wherein a protective order was granted to him. However, stand of the State in the said case was that petitioner never cooperated. Same has been dismissed by this court vide separate order of even date. Only plea raised in this petition is that petitioner has been associating with various inquiries pending in the matter. Thus he could not have been declared a proclaimed offender. This court is not impressed with this argument. A perusal of impugned CRM-M-35784 of 2011 3 order shows that an application was moved by the investigating agency before the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as he failed to appear before it. Proclamation was effected on 14th October, 2011. However, petitioner still did not appear. On expiry of period of 30 days he was declared a proclaimed offender and proceedings under Section 83 Cr.P.C. were ordered to be initiated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the said order. Admittedly, investigation of the case is pending since February, 2011. The petitioner has been evading the process of law. Thus, no interference is called for in the impugned order. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE February 22, 2012 'rajpal'