Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tejinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 16 December, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:169279
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-60297-2024
Date of decision:- 16.12.2024.
Tejinder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Narinder Kumar Banka, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Swati Batra, DAG, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 61 11.08.2015 Bholath, District 420, 406, 120-B IPC Kapurthala
1. Challenging the order of proclamation on being declared as a proclaimed offender, the petitioner, has come up before this court under section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS].
2. The State is opposing the present petition and the concerned Dysp has filed the reply dated 15.12.2024. It would be appropriate to extract paragraphs No. 5, 6 and 7 of the reply which read as follows"-
"5. That on 21.08.2015, the petitioner was granted bail by the Ld.Trial Court. However, after that the petitioner got absented himself before the Ld. Court on several dates and on 30.05.2016, non-bailable warrants were issued by the Ld. Trial Court against the petitioner.
6. That petitioner did not appear even after that therefore, proclamation was issued on 26.08.2016 by the Ld. Trial Court and the present petitioner on 29.09.2016 was declared as proclaimed offender by the Ld. JMIC, Kapurthala
7. That on 01.07.2022, the Ld. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bholath pronounced the judgement whereby the co-accused namely 1 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 21-12-2024 19:30:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:169279 Harjinder Singh and Tirath Singh were acquitted of the charges framed against them in the present case and since the petitioner was proclaimed offender so it was directed that the case will be taken up again as and when accused Tejinder Singh surrendered in the court or he is produced after his arrest by the police."
3. Thus, the petitioner was earlier on bail. However, he did not appear and accordingly vide impugned order dated 29.09.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kapurthala, he was declared as proclaimed person (Annexure P-2).
4. After that, the trial against the other accused continued and vide judgment dated 01.07.2022, the accused, namely, Harjinder Singh and Tirath Singh were acquitted by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bholath. Now, the petitioner has come up before this Court, seeking quashing of proclamation on the ground that he was never served.
5. The petitioner was aware of the pending matter and despite that he never bothered to enquire. It is also not believable that petitioner would not have been aware of the acquittal of the other accused and now he has got to know about the acquittal of the two accused, he has come to this Court. This is also undisputed that petitioner was out of India and it is also clear that the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C were not duly effected against the petitioner and there was no compliance of Section 105 Cr.P.C..
6. Petitioner's counsel voluntarily submits that he would deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the Poor Patient Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh, if he is permitted to appear before the trial Court.
7. An analysis of the submissions and the petition would lead to the following outcome. It remains undisputed that when the petitioner got to know about his being declared a proclaimed offender, he took a legal remedy and came up before this Court. It also remains undisputed that it never happened that police officials caught him or tried to run away to avoid an appearance in Court. In such a situation, the petitioner has proved his case by a preponderance of probabilities and has prima facie established that his non- appearance was beyond his control. Although there is a massive delay in approaching this Court, however, the petitioner on their own came before this Court, undertaking to attend the trial, and it is not the police who have been able to arrest.
8. Let the petitioner attend the trial because the criminal justice system must not hamper and suffer because of the petitioner.
9. The primary object of the service is to secure the accused's presence at trial. The petitioner approached this court independently, establishing the bonafide at this stage.
22 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 21-12-2024 19:30:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:169279 Without commenting on the case's merits, and in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and also for the reasons mentioned above, the ends of justice would meet if the impugned proclamation order is quashed qua the petitioner. Thus, exercising the inherent powers under section 528 BNSS, it would be appropriate to grant the following limited relief to the petitioner, subject to the compliance of the conditions mentioned in this order.
10. The State's counsel submitted that if this Court is granting any concession to the petitioner, it must be subject to some reprimand. The petitioner's counsel declared that if this court imposes reasonable and affordable costs, the petitioner shall deposit the same.
11. Given above, let the petitioner appear by 15.01.2025 at 11:A.M., subject to deposit of Rs. 50,000/- in the PGI Poor Patients Welfare fund and avail his legal remedy in accordance with law. Till 15.01.2025, all warrants, look after notice (loc) and proclamation shall remain stayed till 4:00 P.M. However, if the petitioner fails to appear by 15.01.2025 then present order shall stand recall automatically and petition shall be dismissed for non-prosecution.
12. There shall be a stay of the petitioner's arrest in the case mentioned till the date mentioned above to exercise their statutory rights of bail. As mentioned above, this stay is subject to the petitioner's surrender, failing which this protection shall also be recalled. It is clarified that if the petitioner appears before the concerned court, then all warrants issued by the concerned court against the petitioner in the matter mentioned above shall automatically stand recalled and canceled.
13. It is clarified that if the petitioner fails to appear before the concerned court within the time limit mentioned in this order, then this order shall be recalled automatically under section 362, read with 482 CrPC/ 403 read with 528 of BNSS, 2023, without any further reference to this court.
14. It is clarified that this order shall not be construed as an order of bail for which liberty is reserved to file before the appropriate Court if needed.
15. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
16. A certified copy of this order would not be needed, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the concerned court/ officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.
33 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 21-12-2024 19:30:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:169279
17. Petition is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Liberty reserved to challenge the FIR, if any registered pursuant to impugned proclamation order.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 16.12.2024 smriti Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: NO.
44 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 21-12-2024 19:30:51 :::