Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parveen Malik vs State Of Haryana And Others on 5 November, 2012
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
CRM-M No. 34197 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 34197 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: November 5, 2012
Parveen Malik
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. G.S. Gandhi, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.
1. The petitioner, Parveen Malik, was put to trial for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 278, dated 5.9.2008, registered at Police Station, Model Town, Rewari. During the course of the trial, the petitioner absented himself and stopped appearing before the learned Trial Court. His bail bonds were cancelled and forfeited to the State, and non-bailable warrants were issued for securing his presence. Ultimately, vide order dated 28.7.2009 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender. The said order, declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender, is under challenge before this Court by way of the present petition filed in terms of Section 482, Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel contended that due to some misunderstanding and creation of wrong notions in the mind of the petitioner, he could not appear before the Trial Court and, as CRM-M No. 34197 of 2012 (O&M) 2 such, the impugned order (Annexure P-2) was liable to be set aside. He further submitted that due to the intervention of the respectable and elderly people of the society, the matter has been sorted out and a compromise had been effected between the aggrieved persons and the petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner remained out of City Rewari for approximately 3 years, therefore, he was not aware of the order whereby he was declared as a proclaimed offender.
3. Heard.
4. The petitioner had earlier filed CRM-M No. 32634 of 2012, for quashing of FIR No. 278, dated 5.9.2008, under Sections 406 and 420, IPC, registered at Police Station, Model Town, Rewari, and on 15.10.2012, this Court passed the following order:-
" After arguing the case for some time, counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition to enable the petitioner to appear before the learned trial court and move proper application for compounding of the offences.
Dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid."
5. Instead of approaching the learned Trial Court, the petitioner has approached this Court for second time. The petitioner has been evading his appearance before the learned Trial Court for the last more than three years. The explanation furnished by the petitioner that he had gone out of City Rewari, and, therefore, could not appear before the learned Trial Court, does not appear to be plausible one.
CRM-M No. 34197 of 2012 (O&M) 3
6. The averment that the petitioner has sorted out his dispute with the aggrieved persons and effected a compromise, therefore, the impugned order be set aside, is not tenable. In the earlier petition, namely, CRM-M No. 32634 of 2012, vide order dated 15.10.2012, passed by this Court, the petitioner was relegated to appear before the learned Trial Court and to make proper application for compounding of the offences, but without following the said procedure, he has again approached this Court. The judgment in the case titled as Satinder Singh v. The State of U.T., Chandigarh and another, 2011 (2) RCR (Criminal) 89, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order, dated 28.7.2009 (Annexure P-2), passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari. Therefore, the present petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE November 5, 2012 PKapoor