Crl. Misc. No. M-38978 of 2011 (O&M) & Crl. Misc. No. M-39022 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-38978 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : 22.12.2011 Dishant Mittal …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondents And Crl. Misc. No. M-39022 of 2011 (O&M) Dishant Mittal …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondents ………. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. N.K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Both these petitions are disposed of vide this common order as the common questions of law and facts involved therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is a student and is partner in the partnership firm. Cheque in question was signed by accused No.2-Devinder Pal on behalf of accused No.1-partnership firm. Petitioner is neither incharge of day to day working of the firm nor has issued the cheque in question. Learned counsel has further argued that petitioner is studying in Australia on student visa. To pressurize the petitioner complaint has not been withdrawn against the petitioner while same was withdrawn against the other accused No.1 and 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has Crl. Misc. No. M-38978 of 2011 (O&M) & Crl. Misc. No. M-39022 of 2011 (O&M) 2 further argued that meanwhile petitioner was declared proclaimed offender while he should have not been decaled proclaimed offender since offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act does not find place under sub-section (4) of Section 82 Cr.P.C. He has placed reliance on the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Satinder Singh Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh and another, reported in 2011(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 89. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 02.01.2012 and shall seek bail therefrom. He has further stated that petitioner has to report back to Australia on 06.02.2012, therefore, trial court be directed to conclude the trial before 06.02.2012. Present petition is being disposed of with the direction that petitioner shall appear before the trial court on 02.01.2012 and on moving the bail application he shall be enlarged on bail by the trial court on furnishing his personal bond and one surety bond to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. Learned trial court shall decide the complaint on or before 05.02.2012 and shall take into consideration as to whether complaint is maintainable against the petitioner accused No.3 who has neither signed the cheque nor is incharge of day to day working of the partnership firm; in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that complaint against accused No.1-partnership firm and accused No.2 who has issued the cheque in question has already been withdrawn. A copy of this order be placed on the connected file. ( Alok Singh ) December 22, 2011 Judge Anand