Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 391 (PNJ)

Puran Chand Sharma v. State Of Haryana

2021-02-17

MANOJ BAJAJ

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner being an accused in case FIR No.428 dated 16.09.2012, registered under Sections 148/149/323/427/447/452/506/380 IPC, 1860 at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar, applied for pre-arrest bail through CRM-M-5049-2014 and vide order dated 25.02.2014 (Annexure P-2), this Court extended the interim concession. The said order reads as under: "Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the allegations in the FIR, one person is stated to be armed with sword and given injury on the shoulders of the complainant but there is no injury on the person of the complainant with sword. He also argued that this is a false case. Civil litigation is pending between the parties and the petitioner is even ready to deposit Rs. 1,10,000/- which the learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana states to have been found stolen but had not mentioned in the FIR. Petitioner is directed to deposit the above said amount within seven days before the Trial Court and will not claim the said amount till the final disposal of the case. Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation on 04.03.2014 at 10.00 a.m. and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C Adjourned to 07.04.2014." 3. In compliance of above order, the accused (petitioner) deposited the requisite amount on 03.03.2014 and thereafter, the interim concession granted vide order dated 25.02.2014 was made absolute on 07.04.2014 (Annexure P-3). It was ordered that the amount deposited will be finally adjusted against the claim of the complainant against the petitioner, if any, in civil litigation. 4. The trial in the above FIR ended in acquittal of all the accused persons including the petitioner through judgment dated 25.02.2020 (Annexure P-6), therefore, the petitioner moved CRM-26961-2020 in CRM-M-5049-2014 and prayed for issuance of directions to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri to release the above mentioned amount. This Court vide order dated 06.11.2020 (Annexure P-7), accepted the prayer and ordered that the amount deposited by the petitioner be refunded to him. 5. This Court vide order dated 06.11.2020 (Annexure P-7), accepted the prayer and ordered that the amount deposited by the petitioner be refunded to him. 5. On the strength of the order dated 06.11.2020, the petitioner applied for release of the amount, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, who declined the prayer vide impugned order dated 13.01.2021 (Annexure P-8), on the ground that the order dated 25.02.2014 carries the prohibition against the release of the amount till the disposal of the case, instead of trial. By way of impugned order, the oral objection of the complainant was sustained, who stated that his appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 25.02.2020 is pending. It was observed that the pendency of the appeal by complainant was not brought to the notice of this Court when the order of release of amount was passed on 06.11.2020, therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- cannot be disbursed to the applicant (petitioner). 6. Though, it has been noticed in the impugned order that the notices of the appeal have not been served, despite that the Court declined the prayer of the petitioner, compelling him to seek clarification/direction from this Court. Apart from it, the condition contained in the order dated 25.02.20214 was imposed in a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner and, therefore, it could not have been stretched beyond the conclusion of the trial. 7. Above all, the direction contained in order dated 06.11.2020 is absolutely clear and unambiguous, therefore, prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, while passing the impugned order has not only shown judicial indiscipline warranting disciplinary action, but has deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Court and this amounts to contempt of Court. 8. Notice of motion. 9. Let rule nisi be served upon Mr. Arvind Kumar, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, returnable on 25.02.2021. 10. At this stage, Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the state and prays for time to seek instructions.