Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1157 (PNJ)

Nidhi Arora v. Sada Nand

2003-08-18

NIRMAL SINGH

body2003
ORDER Nirmal Singh, J. - Sada Nand filed a complaint against the petitioner under section 420 Indian Penal Code. Petitioner was summoned in that complaint. She appeared before the trial court and furnished bail bonds and surety bonds. Petitioner moved an application before the trial court to grant her permission to go abroad and to complete her studies. The application was contested by the complainant-respondent on the ground that proceedings under sections 82/83 Criminal Procedure Code have been initiated against the petitioner. The presence of the petitioner was procured with great difficulty after proclamation was issued against her. 2. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, dismissed the application vide order dated 13.8.2003. 3. Petitioner filed this petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the impugned order dated 13.8.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal with further request that she may be allowed to go to Australia for continuing her studies. 4. Petitioner has got admission in Master of Business (Information Systems) BMIS in Victoria University of Technology, Melbourne City MC, Australia. This course is expected to complete on 31.7.2004. Petitioner has placed on record complete scheduled of studies as Annexure P-7 with this petition. 5. Mr. Arvind Singh, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer allowing permission to the petitioner to go to Australia on the ground that petitioner after getting the bail, went to Australia without taking the permission from the court. 6. On the other hand, Mr. V.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no condition in the bail order that before leaving the country, the petitioner should take prior permission of the court. He further submitted that petitioner applied for exemption from personal appearance before the trial court and has also given an undertaking that evidence may be recorded in her absence. He further submitted that learned trial Court declined the prayer for exemption from personal appearance. He also submitted that due to some unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner could not come to India in time but petitioner was ready to come back to India. By that time, warrants of arrest were issued against her. Thereafter petitioner filed Crl. Misc. No. 26207-M of 2003 before this court that she would surrender before the trial Court within one month i.e. on 4.8.2003. By that time, warrants of arrest were issued against her. Thereafter petitioner filed Crl. Misc. No. 26207-M of 2003 before this court that she would surrender before the trial Court within one month i.e. on 4.8.2003. This court vide order dated 3.7.2003 directed that warrants of arrest issued against the petitioner be treated as bailable warrants and she would surrender before the trial Court on or before 4.8.2000. 7. In pursuance of the order issued by this court, petitioner surrendered before the trial Court. This shows bonafide on the part of the petitioner. Petitioner was in Australia. If she had to evade the prosecution, then she would not have moved an application for surrendering before the trial Court and could delay the proceedings on one pretext or other. But from the conduct of the petitioner, it shows that there was no intention on her part not to face the prosecution. 8. Sada Nand-complainant has also filed a complaint under sections 465/467/468.120-B Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Petitioner has challenged the said complaint by filing a petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code and notice of motion for 10.11.2003 was issued in the said case and further proceedings before the trial court were ordered to be stayed. 9. In the present case no doubt the proceedings have not been stayed but a direction was issued to the trial Court to fix the case after the date fixed in this case. 10. Taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner, it will be in the interest of justice that petitioner should be allowed to leave India for completing her studies in Australia but subject to the undertaking given by the petitioner before the trial court in the following terms :- (i) that the proceedings may continue in her absence and evidence may also be recorded; (ii) that whenever her presence is required, she will appear in the courts (iii) that she will furnish personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. Disposed of in the above terms. Petition allowed.