Criminal Misc. No. M-30076 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-30076 of 2010 Date of Decision:October 13,2010 Mahabir Parshad ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Hari Om Attri, Advocate for the petitioner. ** Sabina, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' for short) for setting aside order dated 17.9.2010 (Annexure P1) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Hisar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the trial Court on 2.4.2008 could not be reviewed by the said Court while passing the impugned order. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. In the present case, petitioner is facing the criminal proceedings in the FIR No 507dated 28.9.2002 under Sections 467,468,471, 420,120-B Criminal Misc. No. M-30076 of 2010 2 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Civil lines, Hisar. Vide order dated 2.4.2008, the application filed by the petitioner seeking exemption from personal appearance was disposed of and the following order, as reproduced on page 10 of the petition, was passed:- “ At this stage an application for permanent exemption from personal appearance on behalf of accused is moved alongwith affidavit. The copy of the application has been handed over to APP and counsel for the complainant. No reply has been filed. Argument on this application heard. It is stated in the application that accused is 60 years of age and is permanent resident of Sikkim and is suffering from old age disease i.e. Sugar Blood Pressure etc. and travel so long each and every date. He has also mentioned that he will not dispute his personal identity as an accused and will continue to represent himself through his counsel Sh.M.M.Rai. Keeping in view all these facts, personal appearance of accused is exempted till further order and his counsel shall remain present on his behalf on each and every date. JMIC, 2.4.2008” A perusal of the order dated 2.4.2008 reproduced above reveals that the personal appearance of the petitioner was exempted till further orders. This implies that in case a situation arose, the exemption from personal appearance granted to the petitioner could be withdrawn. The complainant has brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner was misusing the said concession. The learned trial Court in paras 21 and 22 of Criminal Misc. No. M-30076 of 2010 3 the impugned order has held as under:- “21. It is correct that civil proceedings are going on in execution wherein presence of accused Mahabir Parshad is required and he is avoiding presence in those proceedings and conditional warrants were issued in his name by the court concerned, as the accused is not making payment and he is also avoiding the service of conditional warrants. A person who is seeking exemption is not to misuse the process of law while seeking permanent exemption on grounds which are unsustainable grounds. A person who is appearing before the court should come with clean hands, if he intends to seek exemption in the application from personal appearance. It is no where mentioned by the applicant Mahabir Parshad that execution proceedings against him are going on in other court, where he is required to put his appearance and he is avoiding the service of conditional warrants. 22. In order to avoid payment, accused is avoiding service. Thus, under these circumstances when the accused is himself guilty of avoiding the court orders in other court and proceedings against him are going on; he is not entitled to the concession of exemption from personal appearance. It is correct that civil proceedings are different but the applicant cannot take benefit on his fault. Under these circumstances, application of applicant Mahabir Parshad who is seeking exemption from personal appearance till further orders is dismissed as devoid of merits. Now, to come up on 28.09.2010 date already fixed in this matter Criminal Misc. No. M-30076 of 2010 4 for further proceedings.” The reasons given by the trial Court, while declining the benefit of exemption of personal appearance to the petitioner, are sound reasons. Moreover, now, the case is listed for defence evidence and the petitioner can conclude his evidence so that the trial can be disposed of expeditiously. In these circumstances, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge October 13, 2010 arya