The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the Court to exempt an accused from personal appearance at all stages of the proceedings, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the interest of the accused and considering various parameters for granting exemption.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 0400 dated 06.08.2017 (Annexure P-5), under Sections 448, 452, 506 IPC (Sections 451, 341, 379, 34 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Rai, District Sonipat. Further prayer has been made for quashing of order dated 21.08.2022 (Annexure P-6) whereby learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sonipat framed charges against them under Sections 448, 452, 451, 411, 506, 379, 34 IPC.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted Industrial Plot No. 1426, Phase V, Industrial Estate Rai, measuring 450 Square Meters on 10.12.2004 and conveyance deed was executed on 24.05.2006 by HSIDC. Petitioner No.1-Suresh Kumar, who is proprietor of M/s SS Paper Industries, and his son namely Sandeep Kamboj-petitioner No.2, were running their business since 2004. The petitioners defaulted in repayment of bank loan which they had taken from Punjab National Bank. The bank auctioned the property in question to respondent No.2. S.A. No. 4517 of 2014 was filed before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh in this regard. A civil suit No. 1478 of 2017 was filed by petitioner No.1 on 21.02.2017. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonipat, vide order dated 27.02.2017, restrained respondent No.2 from alienating the suit property i.e. the factory in question and dispossessing petitioner No.1. The case was adjourned to 18.03.2017. The interim order was operative till 09.10.2017 when the stay granted in favour of petitioner No.1 was vacated. The zimni orders passed in this context have been placed on record as Annexures P-3 (Colly) and Annexure P-4.

3. On 06.08.2017, an FIR was registered against the petitioners alleging therein that when respondent No.2 reached the factory in question, the possession of which was taken by him from Punjab National Bank on 15.07.2017, he found the locks to be broken and that petitioner No.1 had thrown their goods out of the factory and took possession thereof. The copy of the said FIR has been placed on record as Annexure P-5. Learned trial Court, finding a prima facie case, framed charges against the petitioners vide order dated 21.08.2018 as stated above. The copies of order framing charges and the charge-sheet have been placed on record as Annexures P-6 to P-8.

OBSERVATION AND ANALYSIS

4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the record with his able assistance, this Court does not find it to be a case which falls within the parameters laid down for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) and quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P-5) along with all consequential proceedings. However, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to zimni orders dated 23.05.2022 and 18.01.2023 which are Annexures P-9 and P-10 respectively. A perusal of the above orders clearly indicates that the complainant and other PWs are not coming forward to depose before the learned trial Court. Bailable warrants had been issued against complainant Dalip and warrants of arrest had been issued against PW Gulzar.

5. Undisputedly, the FIR in the present case was registered on 06.08.2017 under Sections 448, 452, 506 IPC (later on added Sections 451, 341, 379, 34 IPC) at Police Station Rai, District Sonipat. Almost six years have passed and the petitioners are regularly appearing before the trial Court but the prosecution has not been able to produce its witnesses for all these years. In the totality of circumstances, this Court deems it a fit case where the personal appearance of the petitioners is required to be dispensed with. The failure of the prosecution to produce its witnesses and conclude the trial in almost five years has put the petitioners through unjustified suffering and inconvenience.

6. Section 273 of the Code explicitly states that all evidence taken during the trial shall be