IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-33007 of 2009 Date of decision : 04.12.2009 Rashpal Kaur … Petitioner Versus State of Union Territory, Chandigarh. …Respondent Present: Mr.Jasdeep Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Kulbir Dalal, Advocate for Mr.Hemant Bassi, Advocate for U.T., Chandigarh. S.S.Saron, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the order dated 12.10.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby, the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.6.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh has been dismissed and also for setting aside the order dated 15.6.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh whereby the application of the petitioner to go abroad for two months has been rejected. The petitioner is facing prosecution in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh and challan against her has been filed. FIR (Annexure P-1) has been registered on the complaint of Swaran Singh and others. According to the complainants, they were duped in purchasing Flat No.3171, Sector 51-D, Industrialist Society, Chandigarh by the petitioner. The petitioner had introduced the complainant to the owner of the flat i.e. Shri H.S.Dhillon, however after taking a sum of Rs.20 lacs, she had not transferred the said flat to the complainant. The case set up by the petitioner is that in fact, a sum of Rs.20 lacs was her own money which was Crl.Misc.No.M-33007 of 2009 given to one of her relative Mr. M.S.Dhillon, who had deposited the same in the account of the complainant for buying this flat. In fact, M.S.Dhillon had got the deal settled with the owner H.S.Dhillon. It is submitted that mother of the petitioner had given $ 50,000/- from abroad and the same was given to Mr. M.S.Dhillon, who had put it into the account of the complainant for converting them into Indian rupees and then pay the rest to the owner Mr. H.S.Dhillon. It is not in dispute that civil litigation with regard to the said flat is also pending before the trial court. The petitioner is only seeking permission to go abroad. There is no other criminal case pending against her, besides it is submitted she has sufficient moveable and immovable property in Chandigarh and Punjab. Moreover, her son who is a green card holder in USA is presently in India for two years. The petitioner herself is to go abroad to keep her green card operative. Therefore, it is submitted that in case the petitioner does not go abroad by 22.12.2009, her facility of green card that she has would be affected. Therefore, to keep the same operative, she has to go abroad. Learned State counsel has strongly opposed the application. It is submitted that the petitioner in case she goes abroad, is not likely to return back to India. Therefore, keeping in view the case pending against her, it would be inappropriate to permit her to go abroad. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In Srichand P.Hinduja v. State through C.B.I., New Delhi, 2002(3) RCR (Crl.) 186 (SC), permission was granted to the accused in the said case to go abroad. The case related to the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC as also under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-33007 of 2009 (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the said case also, a plea was raised that if the appellants therein were permitted to go abroad, it would be affect the smooth progress of the trial and there were reasonable grounds to believe that they would not return back to India to face the trial. It was noticed, that the appellants therein were Indian Nationals at the time of registration of the FIR and thereafter they had acquired British and Swiss Nationalities. The Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as an interim measure allowed the accused therein to go abroad subject to their furnishing adequate sureties. In Arun Kappor v. State of Haryan, 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 594 (P&H), this Court granted permission to the accused therein to go abroad in a case that was registered for the offences under Section 406, 419, 420, 467,468 and 471 IPC. In the present case, except for the present case for the offence under Section 420/120-B IPC, there is no other case pending against the petitioner. The petitioner seeks permission to go abroad for two months so as to enable her to keep her green card facility operative. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she will be bound by the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient to allow the petitioner to go abroad on certain conditions. Accordingly, the Criminal Misc. petition is allowed and the order dated 12.10.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh and the order dated 15.6.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh are set aside and the petitioner is granted permission to go abroad for a period of two months from the day she leaves subject to the following conditions:- 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-33007 of 2009 (i) The petitioner would execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10 lacs to the satisfaction of the trial Magistrate, undertaking to appear in Court after a period of three months from the execution of the bond. (ii) The petitioner shall bind herself that she shall return from abroad and appear before the learned trial Magistrate, for the purpose of trial. (iii) The petitioner shall also furnish two sureties in the sum of Rs.10 lacs each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate, for her return from abroad and appearance before the Court. (iv) The sureties and bonds shall be accepted and after acceptance of the sureties a period of two months shall be given to the petitioner to go abroad. (v) On return, the petitioner shall continue to be bound by the old bonds and conditions imposed while releasing the petitioner on bail; and the conditions imposed for her going abroad shall cease to be operative. During the period of two months that the petitioner is abroad, her personal appearance before the trial Court shall remain dispensed with and she shall be permitted to appear through her counsel. [ S.S.Saron ] Judge 04.12.2009 sd/amit 4