GURMAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, by way of instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 15.07.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barnala, whereby cancellation report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.57 dated 18.08.2004 under Sections 498-A, 406, 420/34 of the Indial Penal Code ('IPC' for short), was accepted and also the order dated 03.07.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, whereby abovesaid order dated 15.07.2009, was upheld. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, reply by way of affidavit dated 20.07.2011 was filed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the learned Courts below have misdirected themselves, while passing the impugned orders. He submits that since the petitioner-complainant was staying in Canada, no notice was served upon him, before accepting the cancellation report. He further submits that it was mandatory for the learned trial Court to ensure service on the petitioner, granting him an opportunity of being heard.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances noticed hereinabove, instant one has not been found to be a fit case warranting interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. It is a matter of record that petitioner, along with all of his family members, is staying in Canada. Instant proxy litigation is being pursued by the petitioner through his attorney Smt. Harbir Kaur, on the basis of General Power of Attorney dated 25.01.2006. It is neither pleaded nor argued on behalf of the petitioner before this Court that after registration of FIR against the respondents-accused, at the instance of the petitioner, he ever came to India. Again, neither it is pleaded nor argued before this Court that while leaving for Canada, petitioner intimated the investigating agency in this regard or gave his address of Canada, requesting for any intimation to him regarding the progress of the investigation or result thereof. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned Courts below committed no error of law, while passing the impugned orders and the same deserve to be upheld.