IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-5006 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 15, 2008 Anil Arora .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Rahish Pahwa Dudeja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kamaldeep Singh Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) Mr. Anil Arora, a practising Advocate in Civil Courts, Jalandhar, has approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing show cause notice dated 20.11.2004, Annexure P-1. Annexure P-1 indicates that Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Phagwara issued a show cause notice to the petitioner to show as to why legal proceedings be not taken against him and the matter be not forwarded to the police authorities for investigation for misleading the Court and for furnishing false and invalid surety. It has been prima facie recorded that conduct of the petitioner had perpetuated the Crl. Misc. No. M-5006 of 2008 [2] misdeed on the part of the accused in getting the accused released from Court without proper surety bonds. Facts in brief are that challan was filed in case FIR No.33 dated 21.3.2004 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station, Sadar, Phagwara, titled ‘State Vs. Kari Kumar’. The accused in the said case furnished personal bond and surety bond on 26.3.2004 and thereafter, had not attended the proceedings. The record indicates that the accused had been released on the surety of Mohinder Singh son of Banta Singh. The said accused was represented by the petitioner. The surety however was identified by another lawyer Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate. In view of the fact that the accused went absent and despite best efforts, could not be produced before the Court, he was declared Proclaimed Offender. The identifier of the surety namely Monohar Lal, Advocate, appeared in Court on 16.10.2004 and stated on oath that he had identified surety Mohinder Singh at the instance of the petitioner. The statement has further brought out the fact that Manohar Lal, Advocate, had never met and had never seen Mohinder Singh, surety. Mohinder Singh could not be traced as his particulars were found to be incorrect. I have considered the issue. It has been brought out by learned Crl. Misc. No. M-5006 of 2008 [3] counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is being harassed by protracted proceedings. For the last four years, the petitioner has been appearing. The petitioner is ready and willing to give complete cooperation, however, the matter is not being decided. The matter has not been referred to the police authorities even for enquiry. The zimni orders have been placed on record which indicate that the matter is being adjourned for no good reason. In my considered opinion, it would be appropriate to direct the concerned Magistrate to dispose of the matter either by way of referring it to the police authorities for further investigation or otherwise, within two months of the next date of hearing fixed before that Court. Ordered accordingly. (AJAI LAMBA) December 15, 2008 JUDGE avin