Crl. Misc. No. M-36425 of 2010 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-36425 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 25.02.2011 Sudesh Kumar Sharma ..........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Narang, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf Sudesh Kumar Sharma for quashing of order dated 22.7.2000 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, vide which, he has been declared proclaimed offender in Criminal complaint No. 144 dated 28.10.1991 registered under Sections 177,179,181,182,205,411,420,465, 466,467,468,474 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner was granted bail and was attending the Court proceedings regularly but due to certain compelling circumstances, he along with his family members left India on 14.3.2000 and subsequently impugned P.O. order was passed in his absence. Learned counsel for the petitioner Crl. Misc. No. M-36425 of 2010 (O&M) (2) further submits that the petitioner was away to USA and vide letter dated 25.9.2001, he along with his family members was granted asylum by USA. Learned counsel also contends that the absence of the petitioner from the Court proceedings was neither willful nor deliberate as under the compelling circumstances he left the India and no efforts were made by the trial Court to effect any service upon him. Even in the impugned order, no where it is mentioned that he did not join the Court proceedings willfully and avoided the Court proceedings deliberately in any manner. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to surrender before the trial Court and join the Court proceedings. Learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as respondent No.2 have also not controverted the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned P.O. order as well as other documents available on the file. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner was earlier granted bail and was attending the Court proceedings regularly and when he left the India for U.S.A under the compelling circumstances, P.O order was passed in his absence. There is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner avoided the service of the summons and his absence was willful or deliberate in any manner. n view of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner was not in India and PO proceedings were initiated in his absence, no efforts were made to effect any service and moreover there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner absented himself willfully and avoided the service of the summons in any manner, impugned order dated 22.7.2000 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court within a period Crl. Misc. No. M-36425 of 2010 (O&M) (3) of two months and be released on bail subject to payment of ` 50,000/-, half of which is to be deposited with Bar Association of Punjab and Haryana High, Chandigarh and remaining amount with State Legal Services Authority, Haryana, on his furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court. February 25, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No