Crl. Misc. No. M-26829 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-26829 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 05.09.2011 Sunil Gupta ...Petitioner Versus Sh. V.K. Dhawan and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. O.P. Goel, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. RITU BAHRI J.(Oral) The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure for quashing the complaint No. 36 dated 30.03.2000 (Annexure P- 1), summoning orders (Annexure P-3) dated 30.09.2000 and order dated 09.07.2011 passed Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. As per allegations in the complaint dated 30.03.2000, ` 4 lacs was paid to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for which a receipt was issued on 10.11.1998 at Ludhiana. On 13.09.1998, ` 50,000/- was paid to the mother of the petitioner. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the plot had been sold by the petitioner and his mother for a sale consideration of ` 1,45,00,000/- in favour of Shri Ram Dass Khanna, Managing Director, Swadeshi Manufacturing Syndicate Pvt. Limited on 18.05.1999. Vide order dated 30.09.2000, the petitioner was summoned to face the trial. Learned Crl. Misc. No. M-26829 of 2011 (O&M) -2- counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial is pending in the Court for the last 10 years. He has further submitted that during the pendency of the trial, father of the petitioner was expired on 16.08.2004 (Annexure P-6) whereas his mother expired on 25.10.2005 (Annexure P-8). The petitioner had approached this Court by filing Crl. Misc. No. 27639-M of 2005 for quashing of the complaint, summoning order (annexure P-1). This petition was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a revision against the summoning orders. The petitioner availed this liberty and filed Criminal Revision No. 132/10.4.2007 before the District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. This revision was dismissed vide order dated 09.07.2011 on the ground that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint and the preliminary evidence led in support of the same and it is not permissible under law for the revisional Court to got into the merits of the case and to decide the same. The precise case of the petitioner is that a perusal of the entire complaint and the evidence led in support does not make out any case against the petitioner. There is neither any documentary nor ocular evidence against the petitioner. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this petition to take all the pleas before the trial Court. During the pendency of the trial, personal appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court is exempted subject to the following Crl. Misc. No. M-26829 of 2011 (O&M) -3- conditions:- (i) petitioners shall be represented through counsel; (ii) shall not delay/stall the trial proceedings; (iii) shall not dispute their identity as accused: (iv) shall have no objection if the prosecution evidence is recorded in their absence but in the presence of his counsel; (v) shall appear before the trial Court as and when required by the trial Court; and (vi) any other condition which the learned trial Court may impose. Since the trial is pending for the last ten years, trial Court is directed to complete the proceedings within one year. September 05, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) G.Arora JUDGE