IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.18205 -M of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : APRIL 28, 2010 SURINDER KUMAR SYAL ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl.AG, Haryana. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing of case FIR No.84 dated 20.7.1984 under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1955, and Sections 409, 420, 468, 465, 471, 120-B and 161, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Nangal, District Roop Nagar, and subsequent proceedings. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that perusal of order dated 27.7.1999 (Annexure P-12) shows that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, for bail. It was projected before the bail court that the petitioner was never served with notice about the registration of the case by the police or by the court. The Criminal Misc. No.18205 -M of 2009 2 petitioner was in United States of America, while on leave from the department. The petitioner was declared a Proclaimed Offender by the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib. The petitioner, however, had intention of coming back to India. Apprehending arrest, the petition for bail was filed. Bail was allowed vide order dated 27.7.1999 (Annexure P- 12), considering the fact that the petitioner had intention of coming to India and joining the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has not come back till date. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it transpires that the petitioner was allowed bail on an undertaking given by him that he shall come back to India and join the proceedings. The bail order was procured by way of giving a wrong statement to the court. The petitioner has not come back and, now, through this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR and proceedings. The petitioner has shown scant respect for law. Rather, the petitioner has abused the process of law by applying for bail on a particular undertaking, which he never wanted to honour. No ground for interference under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, is made out. The petition is dismissed. April 28, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?