CRM No. M-27879 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh CRM No. M-27879 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 7.10.2009 Charanjit Singh ..... Petitioner vs State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the order dated 14.1.2005 declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender in FIR No. 110 dated 9.6.2000 registered under Section 323, 341, 506, 298, 34 IPC, at Police Station City Nawanshahar or in the alternative granting bail to the petitioner immediately on his surrendering before the court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the registration of the FIR, quashing petition bearing CRM No. 26876/M of 2000 Sarwan Singh and another vs State of Punjab and others was filed in this court in which further proceedings were stayed on 10.8.2000. It was thereafter that the petitioner, who has old parents to support, had gone abroad to earn his livelihood on 13.8.2001. After the quashing petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 6.1.2003, the petitioner was directed to be summoned, however, the service report received was that he was residing abroad and the summons could not be served on the petitioner. Ultimately, on 14.1.2005 the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender. Learned counsel further submitted that as the petitioner had gone abroad, before declaring him proclaimed offender, he was required to be served through the Ministry of External Affairs. He further submitted that the other co- accused after trial though has been convicted under Sections 323, 506, 298 IPC, however, was granted the benefit of probation vide judgment dated 4.4.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahar. He relied upon judgment of Delhi High Court Sunil Kumar vs State 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 119 and order dated 3.4.2006 passed by this court in CRM No. 28203/M of 2004 titled CRM No. M-27879 of 2009 (2) as Kuldip Kaur vs State of Punjab and submitted that as the petitioner wants to join the proceedings he may be protected from his arrest. The petitioner is ready and willing to furnish heavy surety. He had gone abroad under compelling circumstances and that too when further proceedings were stayed by this court in a quashing petition and the allegations in the FIR are not serious. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition. It is a case where the FIR was registered against the petitioner on 9.6.2000. Initially the petition for quashing of the FIR was filed before this court in which while issuing notice of motion, further proceedings were stayed on 10.8.2000. The petitioner, admittedly, went to Greece on 13.8.2001 without seeking permission from the court to go abroad and now more than eight years thereafter he wants to join the proceedings and is seeking quashing of the order passed against him on 14.1.2005 declaring him a proclaimed offender or in the alternative granting him bail. Considering the conduct of the petitioner, I do not find this to be a fit case where he deserves the concession of bail. After making lot of efforts to serve the petitioner through bailable and non-bailable warrants he was declared proclaimed offender. The contention of learned counsel that he being abroad and that fact being in notice of the court, he should have been served through the Ministry of External Affairs is totally misconceived. Admittedly, the petitioner left the country during the pendency of the trial without permission and without informing the court about his address there. Ministry of External Affairs is not expected to serve summons on a person living abroad without knowing his exact address. As far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, in Sunil Kumar's case (supra), the facts as noticed by the court show that the petitioner therein was arrested immediately when he arrived in the country. In so far as the case of Kuldip Kaur (supra) is concerned, in that case the FIR was registered against the petitioner therein after she had left the country. Accordingly, both the cases are distinguishable on facts. In view of my above discussion, the present petition is dismissed. 7.10.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge