IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No. M- 9304 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: March 28,2011 Darbara Singh ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** ORDER This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of summoning order dated 19th February, 1983 passed by JMIC, Nawanshahr in case FIR No. 300 dated 9.10.1982 registered under Sections 326/34 IPC at Police Station Banga and later on offence under Section 302/34 IPC was added. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has wrongly been implicated in the case as he was neither present at the time of occurrence nor he has been named in the complaint or in FIR. Even during the course of evidence also, the name of the petitioner has not been figured in any manner and his role has not been stated by any of the witnesses of the occurrence. Learned counsel further submits that even during the trial, no finding has been given with regard to common intention of the accused. The petitioner is residing in England for the last more than 27 years and he has come to India only on 1st January, 2011 when he came to know with regard to PO proceedings and the impugned PO order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been declared PO without following the provisions of Sections 73, 78 and Crl.Misc. No. M- 9304 of 2011 [2] 82 Cr.P.C. as no notice was ever served upon the petitioner nor any efforts were ever made by the trial Court to effect service upon him. Even it was in the knowledge of the trial Court that the petitioner had gone abroad as is clear from the Zimni orders on record. The petitioner is ready to surrender before the trial Court. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that co-accused of the petitioner have been convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner was not in India even at the time of registration of FIR and during pendency of PO proceedings and absence of the petitioner was not wilful as he was neither served by the trial Court nor efforts were made to effect any service upon him and since the petitioner is ready to join the court proceedings, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that in case the petitioner surrenders before the trial Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, he shall be released on interim bail by the trial Court subject to his furnishing bail bond and surety bond to its satisfaction and any other condition as may be imposed by the trial Court. The trial Court is also directed to conclude the trial within a period of three months. Meanwhile, arrest of the petitioner is stayed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE March 28, 2011 raghav