IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-20699 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: August 03, 2011 Kirpal Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prays for quashing order dated 12.7.2010 (Annexure P-7) whereby application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to go abroad has been dismissed. 2. It has been brought out that FIR at issue was lodged on 5.4.2006. Challan in the case was filed on 2.9.2008. The main accused (four in number) are absconding. Petitioner is not the main accused, and is the only person who has been attending the proceedings. Crl. Misc. No. M-20699 of 2011 [2] 3. It has been pleaded that the only son of the petitioner is permanent resident of Australia. The entire life of the petitioner has come to a stand-still on account of delay in judicial proceedings since 2006 till date. It has been argued that the petitioner wants to go abroad on a temporary residency Visa to Australia. It has been contended that total amount involved in the controversy in FIR is ` 4 lac, and the petitioner is ready to furnish security worth that amount or more. 4. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner would furnish fresh bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The petitioner would return back after two months of leaving India. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is the only person who is facing trial. The petitioner is going alongwith his family to Australia and there is every likelihood that petitioner would not return back. 6. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties. 7. First Information Report was lodged on 5.4.2006. Ordinarily, investigation is required to be concluded as expeditiously as possible, without unnecessary delay, as has been provided under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Investigation in this case was completed after 2 years and 5 months of lodging of FIR and challan was presented on 2.9.2008. 8. I have also taken note of the fact that till date, the Trial Court has not even framed charges. Facts of the case also disclose Crl. Misc. No. M-20699 of 2011 [3] that main accused are absconding, and have not been arrested. They have been declared proclaim offenders. 9. The rights of a citizen of the country cannot be curtailed because of slow investigation process and process of Court. Reasonable restriction is required to be imposed, however, in the case in hand, the petitioner has been facing the proceedings since April 2006. Till date, even the trial has not started. 10. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed. Order dated 12.7.2010 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, is hereby set aside. The petitioner is hereby given permission to go abroad for two months. Before going abroad, the petitioner would furnish fresh bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The presence of the petitioner shall remain exempt on the conditions that: (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 (v) he shall comply with any other condition(s) that may be imposed by the Trial Court. (AJAI LAMBA) August 03, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?