Surjit Singh Virk vs State Of Punjab And Another on 1 November, 2012

[Cites 6, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Surjit Singh Virk vs State Of Punjab And Another on 1 November, 2012

Bench: Paramjeet Singh

Crl. Revision No.3354 of 2012                           -: 1 :-


IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH


                                Crl. Revision No.3354 of 2012 (O&M)
                                Date of decision: November 01, 2012.


Surjit Singh Virk
                                                        ... Petitioner(s)

            v.

State of Punjab and another
                                                        ... Respondent(s)


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH


Present:    Shri Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate, for the petitioner.


Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral):

Crl. Misc. No.64063 of 2012 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 89 days in filing the accompanying revision petition is condoned.

Crl. Revision No.3354 of 2012 The petitioner has impugned the order dated 20.4.2012 whereby an application filed by the petitioner for seeking permission to go abroad, wherein it was stated that the marriage of his son Charanpreet Singh is fixed for 5.5.2012 at America, has been dismissed. Besides this, another ground for going abroad is for getting some treatment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the SSP concerned has recommended the cancellation of the FIR.

Crl. Revision No.3354 of 2012 -: 2 :-

The petitioner is facing trial in a case FIR No.180 dated 9.8.2010 under Sections 420, 447, 465, 467, 468, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station City Abohar.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the averments in the impugned order that the petitioner has not placed on record other requisite documents including passport, visa and sponsorship, etc., is wrong. In fact, the petitioner is a citizen of USA, therefore, visa as well as passport are not required. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further states that the police authorities have given in writing that he is not required for further investigation for any other purpose by them. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner is a heart patient and he wants his treatment to be carried out in America.

So far as the first contention that the marriage of the son of the petitioner is fixed for 5.5.2012 is concerned, that stands rendered infructuous now. So far as the second contention, with regard to medical condition of the petitioner is concerned, firstly, because the petitioner is a citizen of USA, there is every likelihood that once he leaves the country, he will not return back to India and face trial in the criminal case pending against him. So far as the medical treatment is concerned, the petitioner must have come to this country after taking appropriate treatment and treatment must be for the period for which he has come to India. So far as the contention regarding cancellation report is concerned, cancellation report has not been produced. Whether the petitioner is at fault or not, can only be determined after the cancellation report is accepted or rejected. The issue of leaving the country will only arise when the cancellation report is Crl. Revision No.3354 of 2012 -: 3 :- accepted. No ground is made out for interference.

Dismissed.

[ Paramjeet Singh ] November 01, 2012. Judge kadyan

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court