IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.20228-M of 2010 Date of Decision:8.10.2010 Harjit Singh .... Petitioner Versus M/s Videocon Industries Limited .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Advocate for Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for the respondent. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 15.3.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon in case No.330 of 2001 (Annexure P-1) pending in the Court of Sh. Mukesh Rao, JMIC, Gurgaon. Although in compliance to the order of the trial Court directing to provide questionnaire to the accused named in the complaint, the respondent-complainant provided the requisite questionnaire but only the petitioner could reply to the said questionnaire. However, Ms. Amandeep Kaur, who is daughter of the petitioner could not reply to the said questionnaire as she is residing in New Jersy (USA). Accordingly, an order was passed on 15.3.2010 refusing to grant any further opportunity to supply questionnaire. Thus, her right was forfeited in terms of the said judgment and notice was issued to appear in person and record her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Crl. M. No.20228-M of 2010 -2- Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the said prayer on the ground that right of Amandeep Kaur was forfeited on account of the fact that enough opportunities had been given to her to supply the reply to the questionnaire, her personal appearance to appear in person to record her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be exempted in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Keva Mukharjee v. Magma Leasing Ltd. (SC) 2008(2) RCR 741 and secondly the present petition was not maintainable as petitioner did not have proper authorization. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. It is not disputed that Ms. Amandeep Kaur is residing in New Jersy (USA) and she was in the family way and a baby was born to her on 23.8.2010. Moreover, the reply to the questionnaire has also since been received by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who undertakes to tender before the trial Court on the next date of hearing, which is stated to be 20.10.2010. As per the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, the right to seek personal exemption is forfeited in case no time is extended by the Court. Thus, in view of the facts brought to notice of this Court and taking into account the personal difficulty faced by the Amandeep Kaur on the basis of which she could neither reply to the questionnaire nor she was able to appear in the Court due to circumstances beyond her control, this Court deems it appropriate and also in the interest of justice and fair play to extend the time to submit the reply to the questionnaire by granting one last opportunity to do so. With respect to the dispute that the petitioner does not have Crl. M. No.20228-M of 2010 -3- authorization, the petitioner has duly rectified the deficiency. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the Power of Attorney given by Ms. Amandeep Kaur authorizing her father/petitioner to challenge the order dated 15.3.2010. Accordingly, order dated 15.3.2010 is set aside only to the extent vide which prayer to submit the reply to the questionnaire as well as right to seek personal exemption of Amandeep Kaur was forfeited. The petitioner, accordingly, shall submit the reply of Amandeep Kaur to the questionnaire on the next date of hearing, which is stated to be 20.10.2010 in the concerned Court. Petition is allowed in the above terms. 8.10.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE