Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Budhi Singh Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of order dated 20.01.2021 regarding the attachment and sale of the petitioner’s property in the complaints titled Rajeev Sood versus Budhi Singh and Praful Kuthiala versus Budhi Singh. It has been asserted that the petitioner’s land situated in Khasra No. 393/1, 393/2/1, 391, 391/1/1, 393/3/1 in Up Mohal Chaedal, TehsilKotkhai, District Shimla was ordered to be attached in complaints titled Rajeev Sood versus Budhi Singh Chauhan and Praful Kuthiala versus Budhi Singh Chauhan, as the petitioner failed to appear before the Court and was declared a proclaimed offender. A civil suit No. 114 of 2011 was decreed against the petitioner ex-parte for Rs. 54,44,520/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18 % per annum on 31.07.2013. This civil suit was compromised between the parties on 19.09.2014 by filing a joint application under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. He undertook to pay the outstanding amount on 14.10.2015. He paid Rs.12 lacs to respondent No. 2 and Rs. 3 lacs to respondent No.3. He could not pay the agreed amount. An execution petition No. 23 of 2016 was filed against him. OM
A proclaimed offender cannot challenge the attachment of property without first contesting the underlying proclamation order, as the property is at the State's disposal if the offender fails to appea....
The court held that despite the absence of a timeframe for executing warrants, the issuance of proclamation and attachment under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. can still be warranted to ensure complai....
Attachment must comply with jurisdictional rules; absence qualifies as an irregularity, not an automatic nullity unless substantial injury is proven.
The court established that the application under Section 85(3) of Cr.P.C. should be considered on its merits, even if filed after two years, if a sufficient cause is shown for the delay.
Money Laundering – Provisional Attachment Order – Formation of opinion must bear a proximate and live nexus to purpose of protecting interest of Government revenue.
Proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. were quashed due to lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice principles, as the petitioners were not given an opportunity to be heard.
Point of Law : Section 83 provides for an order of attachment of any property, movable or immovable belonging to proclaimed person being issued.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
