SUMAN LATA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no likelihood of Manmohan Lal respondent No. 3 being served in this petition in the near future as the impugned order of the trial Court reveals that he has resorted to absconding. The trial Court vide impugned order, Annexure P-3 had dropped the proceedings for the time being against Manmohan Lal accused simply on the ground that the complainant had failed to file process fee for issuance of proclamation against Manmohan Lal. The complainant was, however, given option to file a separate complaint against him. However, separate proceedings were ordered to be started under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the surety of Manmohan Lal accused and fresh notice was ordered to be issued to the surety for 31.5.1990.

(2.) On the face of it this order of the trial Court seems to be illegal as once the accused in a complaint case for offences under Sections 323/506/452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, i e. involving some cognizable offence had resorted to absconding and jumped bail, it was the duty of the trial Court to have enforced his presence by resorting the proceeding under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code. As a matter of fact the trial Court did resort to those proceedings as the impugned order reveals that the complainant had failed to file process fee for issuance of proclamation against Manmohan Lal accused. Instead of taking these proceedings to a strange procedure by dropping the proceedings against Manmohan Lal accused being procured in the early near future, the trial Court should have passed an order under Section 299 of the Code after recording its satisfaction that the presence of the accused cannot be procured without any amount of delay which under the circumstances of the case would be unreasonable. The trial Court should have proceeded to examine the witnesses of the complainant in the absence of Manmohan Lal accused in case ultimately it had failed to procure the presence of accused Manmohan Lal despite resorting to the course of measure contained in Sections 82 and 83 of the Code.

(3.) Consequently, the impugned order of the trial Court is quashed by accepting this petition under Section 482 of the Code. The trial Court is directed to exhaust all the remedies available under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code for enforcing the presence of Manmohan Lal accused and in case there is no likelihood of the presence of Manmohan Lal accused being procured in the early near future, to resort to the provisions of Section 299 of the Code.