Crl.M.No.M-15357 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-15357 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 30, 2011 Gej Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.A.S.Kalra, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. Crl.M.No.27605 of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-15357 of 2011 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 12.9.2007, Annexure P3, passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gidderbaha, vide which petitioner was declared proclaimed offender in FIR No.138 dated 22.12.2003, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Kot Bhai, District Muktsar, Annexure P1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully. It may be mentioned here that earlier a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing Crl.M.No.M-20352 of 2009 was filed by petitioner- accused in this FIR seeking relief of quashing the same. However, the said petition was dismissed on merit vide order dated 26.4.2010. The present Crl.M.No.M-15357 of 2011(O&M) -2- petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 12.9.2007, vide which the petitioner-accused was ordered to be proceeded proclaimed offender. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused that he had to go abroad due to compelling circumstances and hence, he could not appear before learned trial Court. It is further contended that FIR against co-accused has already been quashed by this Court and hence, it is contended that as case of present petition is on similar footing, the impugned order vide which petitioner-accused was declared proclaimed offender be set aside. There are specific allegations against petitioner-accused that he alongwith co-accused mortgaged the land with the bank as security for repayment of loan and, however, lateron it was revealed that the land was already sold by petitioner-accused to complainant and the same land was mortgaged with the bank as security for the loan by concealing the said fact. Admittedly petitioner-accused was released on bail and, however, during trial he had gone abroad without getting permission from the Court and hence, he was declared proclaimed offender on 12.9.2007. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order. Moreover the said order is being challenged after more than three years of passing of the same. Even in earlier petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR, the said order was not challenged. Hence, in view of the fact that petitioner-accused was already declared proclaimed offender and that he has not yet surrendered before learned trial Court, despite specific directions being given in this regard by this Court while deciding Crl.M.No.M-20352 of 2009, on 26.4.2010, there Crl.M.No.M-15357 of 2011(O&M) -3- is no merit in the present petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. 30.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge