Criminal Misc. No.M-16016 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-16016 of 2010 Date of decision: 11.05.2011 Sidharth Walia .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl..A.G., Punjab. ---- Daya Chaudhary, J.(Oral) This petition is for quashing of P.O. order dated September 14, 2007 and also the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in FIR No.80, dated April 17, 2007, under Sections 406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Punjab. Notice of motion was issued on 27.05.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was compromised between the parties and a settlement has been arrived. A draft for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) was deposited before Hon'ble the Supreme Court while hearing of Criminal Appeal No.1638 of 2010 and vide order dated May 09, 2011, the said FIR was quashed. He has also placed on record the copy of the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court as Annexure A-1 with this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner Criminal Misc. No.M-16016 of 2010 ::2:: further submits that the petitioner has been declared Proclaimed offender vide order dated 14.09.2007. The following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner were recorded on May 27, 2010 while issuing notice of motion:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure laid down in Section 82 Cr.P.C. has not been followed as the petitioner was in USA and this fact was in the knowledge of the Court as well as the Investigating Agency and, in spite of that, Proclamation notice was affixed at the place where the petitioner could not have knowledge about such notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the prescribed period of 30 days to appear before the Court has not been given. The proclamation notice was sent on 20.07.2007 by the Magistrate and the appearance date was given 17.08.2007 and that period comes to 25 days and prescribed period of 30 days was not given. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of the Court that two different orders were passed by the Magistrate on the same day. Vide order 25.05.2007, the following order was passed: “NBW of accused Sidharath Walia, Risal Singh Walia and Savitri issued not received back. Be issued again for 13.07.2007.” and again on that very day, the second order was passed which is as under: “Heard. Arrest warrants issued to accused Siddharath Walia, Risal Singh Walia and Savitri Devi Criminal Misc. No.M-16016 of 2010 ::3:: received back unserved. Be issued again for 14.07.2007.” Similarly, on 13.07.2007 the case was adjourned for 20.09.2007 and again on 14.07.2007 the order was passed, whereas the case was already adjourned to 20.09.2011.” It appears from the record that the petitioner was not aware with regard to P.O. proceedings and was not in India at that time. The impugned P.O. order was passed in the absence of the petitioner in the mechanical manner and without application of mind nor any efforts were made to effect service upon him in any manner. It is clear from the facts that two different orders were passed by the Magistrate on the same day. The proclamation was issued on July 20, 2007 and date of appearance was given August 17, 2007. On May 25, 2007 non-bailable warrants of accused Sidharth Walia, Risal Walia and Savitri Devi were received back unexecuted and issued again for July 13, 2007. On that very day, the second order was passed wherein, it was mentioned that arrest warrants issued to accused Sidharth Walia, Risal Walia and Savitri received back unexecuted and again issued for July 14, 2007. On July 14, 2007, the case was adjourned for September 20, 2007 and another order was passed in spite of the fact that case was already adjourned for September 20, 2007. All these facts as mentioned above, clearly shows that while passing impugned order even the Magistrate was not aware about the passing of the another order and how two orders can be passed on a single day. Learned counsel for the State has also not controverted the submission made by the learned counsel for the Criminal Misc. No.M-16016 of 2010 ::4:: petitioner that the matter has been compromised between the parties and moreover, the said FIR has been quashed on the basis of compromise as the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled. Accordingly, in view of the submission and the facts as mentioned above, the present petition is allowed and impugned P.O. order dated September 14, 2007 as well as all other proceedings arising out therefrom are quashed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 11.05.2011 sonika-II