Crl. Misc. No.M-899 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-899 of 2011 Date of Decision: 01.03.2011 Nirmal Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Rajiv Vij, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of order dated 02.01.2009 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the petitioner stood surety for production of a truck bearing No.PAT-674 by respondent No.2 (superdari) and now has been directed to show cause to make payment of surety amount to the tune of ` 2,00,000/- in a case titled as “State vs. Manohar Lal.” A perusal of order dated 02.01.2009 (Annexure P-1) shows that only show cause notice has been issued to the present petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner stood surety for release of the truck on supardari in FIR No.283 dated 29.11.2000 under Section 15 of the N.D.P.S Act registered at Police Station Sadar, Pathankot. The main accused in the FIR was Manohar Singh. Manohar Singh has since died. However, the proceedings in pursuance to the said FIR are still going on. The truck is in Crl. Misc. No.M-899 of 2011 2 the name of Gurjit Kaur, the wife of Manohar Singh. Accordingly, the show cause notice was issued to Gurjit Kaur as to why the payment should not be enforced against her and why the same should not be recovered by attachment and sale of her moveable property taking cognizance. A similar notice was also issued to the present petitioner, whereas, Gurjit Kaur has appeared and got her statement recorded, the petitioner has directly approached this Court for quashing of notice under Section 446 Cr.P.C. A perusal of the said order shows that as of date, the petitioner has only been given a show cause notice to appear and explain as to why the proceedings should not be initiated against him for recovery of amount. No order for recovery of the said amount has yet been passed. Thus, the present petition is pre-mature. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the objections before the Special Judge, Gurdaspur, before whom the matter is pending, who shall decide the same in accordance with law. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the main accused has died and therefore, the entire proceedings stand abated, has no merit as no order has been passed abating the said proceedings and the same are still pending before the trial Court. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 01.03.2011 JUDGE gurpreet