BALBIR SINGH DHOL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking quashing of the order dtd. 17/5/2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, SAS Nagar Mohali in case titled as 'State versus Prince and others' vide which application dtd. 9/5/2022 filed by the petitioner seeking permission to go abroad for a period of 01 month commencing from 30/5/2022 till 30/6/2022 has been dismissed. A further prayer has been sought to grant permission to the petitioner to go abroad for the said period.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is a retired officer from Punjab Civil Services cadre and had also worked as a Chairman of Punjab School Education Board. He contends that during his service, the petitioner remained posted as Estate Officer in GMADA, SAS Nagar, Mohali. On the basis of a complaint sent by GMADA, a case FIR No.72 dtd. 22/7/2013 was registered under Ss. 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Phase-VIII, SAS Nagar Mohali against one Prince son of Radhe Shyam. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that upon conclusion of the investigation, final report under Sec. 173 CrPC was filed wherein the petitioner was not nominated as an accused. It is argued that the petitioner was eventually summoned as an additional accused on an application moved under Sec. 319 CrPC. The petitioner appeared before the trial Court on 30/1/2019 and has since then been regularly appearing before the trial Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that his daughter is a permanent resident of England (London) and she is facing a family dispute for which he is required to go to England for a period of 01 month and an application dtd. 9/5/2022 in this regard was filed before the Illaqa Magistrate. The said application was however declined by the Illaqa Magistrate vide impugned order by noticing that the case is at an advanced stage and the presence of the petitioner would be required in case charge is ordered to be framed against him. Learned counsel contends that the said observation is misconceived inasmuch as the case presently is fixed before the trial Court for adjudication of an application submitted by the petitioner seeking discharge of the petitioner in the said case. The arguments have been part-heard and are yet to be completed and the question of framing of charge shall arrive thereafter. He further argues that the matter is now fixed before the trial Court for conclusion of the arguments on the said application for 1/6/2022 and in addition to the above, a revision petition against the order of summoning the petitioner under Sec. 319 CrPC is also pending before Additional Sessions Judge for 30/5/2022. Learned counsel contends that even if the arguments are concluded on the said date, there would be some time required for the trial Court to pass an order on the said application and that the Criminal Courts shall close for summer vacations from 13/6/2022. It is contended that the petitioner shall be back before the time the Criminal Courts reopen. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish heavy surety or any other condition as may be so imposed in order to ensure his presence.