IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1138 of 2010 Date of Decision : November 12, 2010. Sarabjit Kaur .....Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Nandan Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.J.R.Gurna, Central Government Standing Counsel, for respondent No.1. Mr.H.S.Brar, Addl.AG, Punjab, for respondent No.2. Mr.Dharminder Singh, Advocate, for Mr.Balbir Singh Sewal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 & 5. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner is wife of respondent No.3. It is alleged that soon after the solemnization of their marriage on 13.7.2007, respondent No.3 left for U.S.A. on 28.8.2007 and has thereafter never turned up nor has taken any step to take the petitioner-wife alongwith him in U.S.A.. The petitioner has narrated the factual events in order to suggest that respondent No.3 got married with the petitioner fraudulently and in a deceitful manner. The petitioner has accordingly got registered the FIR C.W.P.No .1138 of 2010 2 No.66 dated 6.6.2008 under Sections 406/420/498-A IPC at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Roop Nagar (Annexure P1) against respondent No.3 and his accomplishes. It is further averred that respondent No.3 was declared a `proclaimed offender' by the trial Court and the State of Punjab has sent several requests to the Union of India to invoke its diplomatic channels to secure the presence of respondent No.3 from the U.S.A. and subject him to the Court of law but no action whatsoever, has been taken so far by the Union of India in this regard. The State of Punjab has filed its reply-affidavit dated 16.8.2010 explaining that the repeated communications sent by it to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India have yielded no response. Learned counsel for the Union of India states that given some more time, the “status report” shall be filed in terms of the order dated 18.8.2010. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose shall be served by granting one more adjournment at the instance of the Union of India to file its reply and/or the status report. Suffice it to say that once the Court of competent jurisdiction has declared respondent No.3 a `proclaimed offender', the authorities in the helm of affairs are obligated to take all those steps as may be required to secure the presence of the suspect to uphold the majesty of law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, to take necessary C.W.P.No .1138 of 2010 3 steps for deportation of respondent No.3 from U.S.A. in a time bound manner and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. November 12, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE