Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1521 (PNJ)

Shantanu Aggarwal v. Sukaram Ispat Company

2012-10-17

RAM CHAND GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral) - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of order dated 04.09.2012, Annexure P-9 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial magistrate, Amloh in complaint no. 48 dated 27.04.2005, under Sections 415/420/467/468 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 with further prayer that petitioner be permitted to go abroad i.e. Thailand for getting the treatment of his wife done. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner-accused that he will appear before learned trial court on 23.10.2012, the date already fixed and that he be granted permission to visit abroad for a period of two weeks to accompany his wife to Thailand and that he will appear before the court on the next date of hearing. Plea has been taken by petitioner that said treatment is required to be given to his wife by some Doctor in Thailand for conceiving a child. 4. Application has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the respondent on the plea that earlier as well petitioner went abroad without permission of the court and hence, his bail bonds were cancelled and proceedings for declaring him proclaimed offender were initiated and however, on his undertaking, he was permitted to appear before learned trial court and admitted to bail and the undertaking was that he will not go abroad before 31.12.2012. 5. It is pertinent to reproduce operative part of the order dated 30.05.2012, which reads as under:- “However, it may also be noticed, at this stage, that it has been stated before this Court that the petitioner will not leave the country till the conclusion of the trial and also that he will appear before the trial Court on each and every date. It has been further submitted on his behalf that he has no objection that if the trial Court is directed to decide the case in hand within a time bound frame. Thus, keeping in view the facts as stated above, this petition is disposed of with the directions that the petitioner will not leave the country till the conclusion of the trial and shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date. Thus, keeping in view the facts as stated above, this petition is disposed of with the directions that the petitioner will not leave the country till the conclusion of the trial and shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court is directed to decide the complaint as expeditiously as possible but on or before 31.12.2012. It is made clear that in case, if the trial is not completed within the time frame, as aforesaid, the petitioner shall be entitled to seek permission of the Court to go abroad in relation to his business etc., if there are compelling circumstances for him. Since the petitioner has already complied with the interim order passed by this Court, no further order is contemplated. However, the petitioner is burdened with costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid to the Punjab legal Services Authority within one month from today. Disposed of.” 6. Request of petitioner was declined by learned trial court in view of the said order passed by this Court. 7. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned trial court in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. Hence, the present petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.