IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision 1216 of 2010 Date of decision: 2.7.2010 Pushpa Gupta …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent Present: Mr PS Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr KC Gupta, Sr DAG Haryana. Mr Anurag Jain, Advocate for the complainant. S.S. SARON, J. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by the learned CJM, Hisar, whereby the petitioner has been declared a PO. Along with the petition, an application has been filed seeking condonation of 89 days’ delay in filing the revision petition. The son of the petitioner namely Rajiv Gupta is married to the complainant – Smt Renu. On account of the matrimonial dispute between them, case FIR for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 120B IPC stands registered against the petitioner and her son. The petitioner applied for pre-arrest bail in the FIR that has been registered and the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 9.9.2009 passed in Criminal Misc M-786 of 2009. Thereafter, the petitioner has been declared a PO. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no intimation was received by the petitioner as she is residing at Delhi. It may be noticed that notices and proclamation admittedly were issued at the house of the petitioner at Karnal. The address of the petitioner in the Memo of Parties 1 Criminal Revision 1216 of 2010 and in the affidavit is that of Karnal. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been unaware of the proceedings whereby she has been declared a PO. In fact, in view of the fact that the application for pre-arrest bail has been declined, the petitioner is not appearing before the trial Court. In the circumstances, no ground is made out for quashing the impugned order dated 30.10.2009 whereby the petitioner has been declared a PO. This petition is accordingly dismissed. 2.7.2010. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE 2