IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-30496 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 13, 2011 Paramjit Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Satnam Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that present is the dispute between the husband and wife and criminal proceedings were initiated against the accused- petitioner on the private complaint No. 32 of 2007 titled “Rajvir Kaur vs. Paramjit Singh and another” under Sections 406, 498-A, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He has further stated that since petitioner was not available in India, therefore, he was declared proclaimed offender vide order Crl. Misc. No. M-30496 of 2011 dated 25.11.2009, however, matter was amicably settled between the parties and compromise (Annexure P/2) was executed between the parties. Learned counsel has further stated that on the basis of compromise, complaint was directed to be withdrawn vide order dated 30.04.2011 (Annexure P/3). He has further stated that even after withdrawal of the complaint vide order dated 30.04.2011 (Annexure P/3), petitioner is apprehending his arrest pursuant to the impugned order dated 25.11.2009 whereby petitioner was declared proclaimed offender in the complaint case. He has further stated that since direction was also issued by the Court vide order dated 25.11.2009 to the effect that proceedings under Section 174-A IPC be initiated against the accused-petitioner, therefore, accused has to face criminal proceedings under section 174-A IPC. Notice of motion. On being asked, Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has fairly stated that since matter was amicably settled between the parties and private complaint was directed to be withdrawn, therefore, no useful purpose would be served for initiating the proceedings against the 2 Crl. Misc. No. M-30496 of 2011 petitioner under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code pursuant to order dated 25.11.2009. In view of the statement made by learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, order dated 25.11.2009 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed. Present petition stands disposed of accordingly. October 13, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3