IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.7527 -M of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : JULY 6, 2011 SARABJIT SINGH BASSI & ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS GURDEV SINGH .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This petition has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.441/2003 dated 30.10.2003 titled 'Gurdev Singh v. Sukhjit Singh Bassi and others' (Annexure P-3), pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, and summoning order dated 17.10.2006 (Annexure P-6). 2 It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that a criminal complaint for commission of offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was filed against the respondent by wife of petitioner No.1 and mother of petitioner No.2. The respondent was convicted. The appeal of the respondent was also dismissed on 13.2.2008. Criminal revision against the judgment of conviction is pending before this Court. Criminal Misc. No.7527 -M of 2010 2 A civil suit against the respondent was also filed for recovery of the cheque amount and the suit was decreed on 5.8.1996. Even Warrant of Attachment was issued on 19.9.2003. It has been pleaded that the complaint impugned in this petition is in counter blast to the afore-given proceedings and, therefore, an abuse of the process of law and abuse of process of court. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that petitioner No.1 has already expired and, therefore, no orders need be passed in his context. Petitioner No.2 is a resident of Canada and is, in fact, presently residing in Canada. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that petitioner No.3 shall face the trial. It has been prayed that all these facts need to be brought to the notice of the trial court, however, in the interest of justice, let the appearance of petitioner No.2 be exempted. 4 Learned counsel for the respondent does not have any serious objection to the said arrangement. 5 This petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction that the presence of petitioner No.2 shall remain exempted on the following conditions:- i) he shall be represented by a counsel before the trial court; ii)he shall not dispute his identity as accused; iii)he shall have no objection if the evidence is recorded in his absence; iv)he shall come present before the trial court as and when required; and Criminal Misc. No.7527 -M of 2010 3 v)he shall comply with any other condition(s) that may be imposed by the trial court. 6 It is, however, made clear that petitioner No.3 shall continue to appear before the trial court. July 6, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?