The court considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on legal proceedings and allowed the advancement of the hearing date. The petitioner's non-appearance before the Magistrate led to the dismissal of the petition.

JUDGMENT :

Amol Rattan Singh, J.

1. All cases listed today have been taken up for hearing by way of video conferencing because of the situation existing due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. On 10.06.2020, the following order had been passed in this case:-

“CRM no.12921 of 2020

All the cases listed today have been taken up for hearing by way of video conferencing because of the situation existing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

By this application, advancement of the date of hearing in the accompanying petition is sought.

Mr. Sekhon, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner, submits that with the lock down having been eventually opened completely (other than at night), the police is now wanting to arrest the petitioner and therefore the date of hearing in the accompanying petition may be advanced, which otherwise fixed for hearing on 22.07.2020.

He further submits that as a matter of fact, the applicant-petitioner, though declared to be a proclaimed offender, was not even present in India at the time when the occurrence which is subject matter of the complaint filed against him and his family members, is alleged to have taken place, with the petitioner being in Dubai from 2011 to 2014, the alleged date of occurrence being 31.05.2013.

Without making any comment on the actual merits of the aforesaid contention, the application is allowed and the date of hearing in the accompanying petition is advanced to today itself.

CRM-M-48912 of 2019

By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 18.09.2017 (Annexure P-2) even though he has been declared to be a proclaimed offender after a criminal complaint was registered against him and his family members, alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 354 and 506, read with Section 34 of the IPC, such complaint having been registered before the competent court at Roopnagar.

The co-accused of the petitioner, i.e. his mother, sister and father, Kuldeep Singh, have been convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of the IPC but as regards the sentence imposed upon them, his mother and sister having been released on probation.

Mr. Beniwal, learned State counsel, points to paragraph 14 of the judgment of the learned trial court, in which the specific role attributed to the petitioner in the occurrence has been described, to the effect that he caught hold of the complainant (his wife) and pulled her hair and started abusing her while giving her fist blows on her body. Mr. Sekhon, learned counsel for the petitioner, however again reiterates that when the petitioner was not present in India at that time, obviously the allegation against him is wholly false. Without making any comment on the correctness of that contention, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, Roopnagar, within one week of today. He shall produce before her/him his passport, with the learned CJM/Duty M Consequently, without making any comment on the merits of this Magistrate to determine therefrom as to whether the petitioner was actually in India on 31.05.2013 or not. If the learned Magistrate finds that the petitioner was not in India on that date, as per the relevant immigration stamps on his passport, she/he would release the petitioner on interim bail to her/his satisfaction, till the next date of hearing fixed before this court, but if it is found that the petitioner was actually in India on that date, i.e. 31.05.2013, such bail shall not be granted to the petitioner, with the learned Magistrate to send her/his report, either online or otherwise, to the Registrar (Judicial) of this court, before the next date of hearing.

Obviously, the commission of the offence alleged (against the petitioner) in the criminal complaint is different to proceedings under Section 174A of the IPC, with the petitioner having been declared to be a proclaimed offender upon not having appeared before the court when summoned to do