IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-4008 of 2010 Date of Decision:10.3.2010 Lalit Krishan Khanna and others .... Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. **** 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. The present petition has been moved for modification of order dated 12.9.2005 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, only to the extent that condition No.3 as mentioned in the aforesaid order be dispensed with. Condition No.3 of the said order reads as under: “3. That they will not leave the country without prior permission of the trial court and shall surrender their passports and travelling documents, if any, before the investigating officer.” In order to modify the said order, certain facts are required to be noticed. FIR No.137 of 2005 was registered against the petitioners and other co-accused on 20.6.2005. After investigation, the cancellation report was submitted by the Investigating Agency. However, a protest petition was filed by the complainant. Accordingly, the petitioners alongwith other co-accused were summoned in the protest petition by the trial Court. On appearance, the petitioners were released on bail and were directed to furnish fresh bail bonds. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a petition for quashing of the complaint i.e. protest petition filed by the complainant Vimal Kumar Khanna, which was registered as Criminal Case No.57/2008 CRM M-4008 of 2010 -2- pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar as well as summoning order dated 12.1.2009. In the said quashing petition, the proceedings before the trial court have been stayed by this Court vide order dated 17.9.2009. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner have a business house and are involved in the business of import and export to different countries. In order to promote the same, he has to visit different countries and it is for this purpose that the petitioners have sought permission to keep the passport in their possession to enable them to send it to different embassies for visa purposes. In any case, as on date, the petitioners have been found innocent by the investigating agency and the proceedings in pursuance to the protest petition have been stayed. In view of the above facts and discussions, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the order dated 12.9.2005 (Annexure P-2) to the extent as prayed for. The petitioners are allowed to travel abroad as and when required subject to the following conditions: (i)The petitioners shall furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/- which will be kept alive till the final disposal of the case. (ii)The petitioners shall inform the trial Court about their traveling plan. (iii)The petitioners shall make themselves available and be present as and when required by the trial court for the purpose of trial. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 10.3.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE