IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-12391 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 05.11.2009 Dr.Pavittar Kumar Bawa ....Petitioner(s) vs. Sukhdev Singh ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Harpreet Singh Giani, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been preferred for quashing of the complaint bearing No.147 dated 23.2.2003 (Annexure P-1) and the summoning order 31.10.2007(Annexure P-4) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Amritsar. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant-respondent without any basis and with a mala fide intention. He contends that as a matter of fact, complainant- Sukhdev Singh had sold his motor-cycle to the petitioner and the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.28506299 dated 27.5.2003 amounting to Rs.25,000/- drawn at State Bank of Patiala, Amritsar, in favour of the complainant-respondent-Sukhdev Singh, which was got encashed by him. As the petitioner asserted that he was the owner of the said motor- cycle, he filed a suit for mandatory injunction for a direction to the respondent-Sukhdev Singh to hand over the possession of the Bullet Crl.Misc.No.M-12391 of 2009 (O&M) -2- motor-cycle 350 CC bearing registration No.PBA-4554 to the petitioner being its owner. The said civil suit was contested by the complainant and the same was decreed in favour of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated dated 15.1.2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Amritsar. An appeal was preferred by Sukhdev Singh- complainant against the said judgment and decree which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated 12.6.2007 (Annexure P-3). He contends that the findings have clearly come in favour of the petitioner that he is the owner of the motor-cycle in question and the possession of the said motor-cycle has also been directed to be handed over to him. He submits that in the light of the findings given by the Civil Courts, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not the owner of the motor-cycle in question and, therefore, the complaint filed by respondent- complainant-Sukhdev Singh cannot be sustained. His further submission is that even the summoning order in complaint No.147 dated 23.2.2003 was issued on 31.10.2007 when the appeal preferred by the complainant also stood dismissed and, therefore, his contention is that the continuance of the complaint against the petitioner is not justifiable. Counsel submits that the petitioner had already moved an application before the trial Court for his discharge and dismissal of the complaint but the said application has till date not been decided. He, at this stage, prays that a direction may be issued to the trial Court to decide the application expeditiously. Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-complainant. I have heard counsel for the petitioner. Keeping in view the Crl.Misc.No.M-12391 of 2009 (O&M) -3- prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner that the application for discharge of the petitioner and dismissal of the complaint which is stated to be pending before the trial Court at Amritsar, it would be just and appropriate at this stage to direct the trial Court to consider and decide the application expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is ordered accordingly. It is made clear that this Court has not entertained the present petition on merits primarily on the ground that the application for discharge of the petitioner and dismissal of the complaint is still pending before the trial Court. However, it would be open to the petitioner to agitate before the trial Court, the grounds taken herein and the assertions made in the present petition as and when required. The petition stands disposed of with the above observations. Counsel for the petitioner at this stage prays that the personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court may be exempted. If an application is moved on behalf of the petitioner for exemption from personal appearance before the trial Court with the following conditions that:-(i) he shall be represented through counsel; (ii) shall not delay/stall the trial proceedings; (iii) shall not dispute his identity as an accused; (iv) shall have no objection if the prosecution evidence is recorded in his absence but in the presence of his counsel; and (v) any other condition which the learned trial Court may impose, the same shall be allowed. November 05, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE