Back
2021 Supreme(P&H) 723
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Suvir Sehgal, J.
Jaspreet Singh @ Jassa - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M-36148 of 2020
Decided On : 28-01-2021
Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. Saurabh Khurana, DAG, Punjab for the State
The purpose of Section 82 of the Code is to secure the presence of the accused, and once the accused has surrendered and obtained bail, the purpose stands achieved and the accused can no longer be described as an absconder.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of Order - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 304-B/498-A/34 IPC - Section 82 of the Code - The court quashed the order declaring the petitioner as a 'proclaimed absconder' and subsequent proceedings under Section 304-B/498-A/34 IPC. The court referred to Section 82 of the Code and held that once the accused, who was absconding, has surrendered and obtained bail, the purpose stands achieved and the accused can no longer be described as an absconder.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of the order declaring him as a 'proclaimed absconder' in a case under Section 304-B/498-A/34 IPC. The petitioner argued that he was not in India at the time of the incident and the summons were never served upon him. He surrendered before the trial court and was on interim bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the order declaring the petitioner as a 'proclaimed absconder' and subsequent proceedings. The bail order was made absolute with the condition that the petitioner shall file an undertaking to appear before the trial court on all dates and not cause any delay in the trial proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, who was not in India at the time of the incident and had surrendered before the trial court, could be declared as a 'proclaimed absconder' under Section 82 of the Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the purpose of Section 82 of the Code is to secure the presence of the accused, and once the accused has surrendered and obtained bail, the purpose stands achieved and the accused can no longer be described as an absconder.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order declaring the petitioner as a 'proclaimed absconder' and subsequent proceedings. The bail order was made absolute with the condition that the petitioner shall file an undertaking to appear before the trial court on all dates and not cause any delay in the trial proceedings.
JUDGMENT
Suvir Sehgal, J. - The hearing of this petition has been taken up through video conferencing on account of outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic.
2. Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the order dated 15.07.2017, Annexure P-2, passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhuri vide which the petitioner has been declared as 'proclaimed absconder' in FIR No.16 dated 25.01.2017 registered under Section 304-B/498-A/34 IPC (Section 304-B was added later on) at Police Station Sadar, Dhuri, District Sangrur and the subsequent proceedings.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was married to Yadwinder Kaur, deceased, on 10.02.2016. Within two months of his marriage, he left India for Malaysia and was in Malaysia throughout till his return in October, 2020. On 24.01.2017, his wife consumed sulfas tablets and was admitted in a hospital but she expired. The abovementioned FIR was registered on the complaint of Tejinder Singh, the brother of the deceased, wherein the petitioner and his mother, Jaswinder Kaur, were named as accused. Counsel submits that as the petitioner was not in India at the time of the death of his wife and registration of FIR, the summons issued by the Court for his service were never effected upon him. He submits that without adopting the procedure as prescribed under Section 82 of the Code, the trial Court declared the petitioner as a 'proclaimed absconder' vide order impugned herein. According to the counsel, the petitioner filed a petition for anticipatory bail which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, by order dated 01.10.2020, Annexure P-3.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the passport, Annexure P-5, and taken the Court through the immigration stamp affixed at the International airport, New Delhi to contend that the petitioner departed from the Airport on 06.04.2016 and returned to India on 09.10.2020. He has referred to Para 10 of the petition to urge that the petitioner was in Malaysia throughout from April, 2016 to October, 2020. Still further, he has referred to the Medical reports, Annexure P-6, of the petitioner to submit that the petitioner has a heart ailment. According to the counsel, the Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) of the petitioner is 45 per cent as the blood being pumped from the left ventricular of the heart of the petitioner is below the normal value of 56-80 per cent. Counsel contends that his medical condition is grave. It is his argument that in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court on 05.11.2020, he has surrendered before the trial Court on 10.11.2020 and has been admitted to interim bail. Still further, he submits that his mother, who is the co-accused, has been acquitted by the trial court vide judgment dated 01.06.2018, Annexure P-5.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel upon instructions from ASI Sukhwinder Singh has opposed the petition and submitted that the proclamation had been effected after following the procedure as prescribed under the Code and the petitioner, who was well aware of the pendency of the proceedings, deliberately evaded appearance before the Court.
I have considered the respective submissions of the counsel for the parties.
6. On 05.11.2020, this Court passed the following order:-
"This matter is being taken up for hearing through video conferencing due to outbreak of the pandemic, COVID-19.
The petitioner, it is submitted, was not in India at the time of registration of FIR No. 16 under Sections 304B, 498A, 34IPC on 25.01.2017. The petitioner was in Malasiya at the relevant time and he has returned to India in October 2020 itself. Therefore, order dated 15.07.2017 (Anneuxre P2), declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed absconder, is de-hors the provisions of law. The co-accused, it is stated, have since been acquitted. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to face trial in the above said FIR.
Notice of motion
