SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(P&H) 1680

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Arun Kumar Tyagi, J.
Kulbir Kaur And Another - Appellant
Versus
Parminder Singh And Another - Respondent
CRM-M No. 8954-2020
Decided On : 06-03-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sylvester, Advocate, for Mr. Sandeep S. Majithia, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1, Mr. Arun Kaundal, D.A.G., Punjab, for Respondent No. 2

Granting permission to travel abroad during the pendency of trial is subject to conditions to secure the petitioner's presence.

Headnote:

Section 482 - Quashing of Order - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 511 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought permission to go to Canada for a family wedding, which was denied due to pending criminal complaints against them.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the petitioners to go to Canada for the wedding, imposing conditions to ensure their return.

Issues: Permission to travel abroad during the pendency of criminal proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Granting permission to travel abroad during the pendency of trial is subject to conditions to secure the petitioner's presence.

Final Decision: The petitioners were allowed to go to Canada for the wedding, subject to the conditions imposed by the court.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of order dated 20.02.2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Amritsar in Criminal Complaint No. 64 of 2007/2010 titled as Parminder Singh versus Kulbir Kaur and others whereby application filed by the petitioners for permission to go to Canada has been rejected.

2. Respondent No. 1/complainant filed criminal complaint No.64 dated 01.02.2007/02.11.2010 against the petitioners under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said complaint was dismissed vide order dated 07.09.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 1 filed revision which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 18.02.2015 whereby the matter was remanded back to the learned trial Court with a direction to pass fresh order on framing of charge after hearing learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioners filed CRM-M-8958-2015 before this Court challenging the aforesaid remand order.

3. The petitioners filed application dated 20.01.2020 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar for grant of permission to go Canada to attend the marriage of Keeret Mann, daughter of younger brother of Navtej Singh Mann petitioner No. 2 with Vijay Pal Singh Dhillon son of Balraj Singh to be performed on March 28, 2020 as per Sikh rites at Gurudwara Khalsa Diwan Society, Surrey, B.C., Canada. The said application was dismissed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar vide order dated 20.02.2020 and the relevant part of the same reads as under: -

    " I have perused the file carefully and after perusing the file I am of the considered opinion that the present application of the applicant cannot be allowed as from the perusal of the file it has been transpired that in the present case in question the applicant has been granted bail vide order dated 26.11.2011 whereby they have been granted bail subject to surrender their passport and even despite the said order passed by the learned Predecessor Court, the applicants failed to furnished any undertaking regarding submitting the passport and even have not complied the orders of Learned Predecessor Court which clearly shows the conduct of the applicant. So, in view of the facts mentioned above, the present application of the applicant cannot be allowed, hence dismissed and further directions are given to the applicant to submit their passport within 15 days in the Court. Present application is ordered to be attached with main file. "

    Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

    4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners want to go abroad for attending the marriage ceremony of Keerat Mann, who is daughter of younger brother of petitioner No. 2-Navtej Singh Mann. The petitioners have got booked the air tickets and they have to leave on 12.03.2020 and will return on 05.05.2020. Presence of the petitioners at the time of marriage is necessary due to petitioner No. 2 being elder brother and petitioner No. 1 being wife of petitioner No. 2 who are living in joint family and are mediators in the marriage. Earlier also the petitioners went to Canada on 07.08.2012 and returned to 31.08.2020. On 27.07.2014, petitioner No. 2 went to Canada and returned on 23.08.2014. The petitioners have huge agricultural, residential and commercial properties in District Amritsar and there is no likelihood of their absconding. The complaint filed against the petitioners has been dismissed and the matter has been remitted back for decision afresh. The petitioners have never misused the concession of bail. The petitioners will not abscond and are ready to abide by the terms and conditions. Therefore, the petitioners may be granted permission to go abroad.

    5. Learned State Counsel and learned Counsel for the compla

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top