HAR KISHAN LAL CHOPRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an accused in. Complaint No. 145/91 on the file of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala.

(2.) ONE Mr. Hans Raj filed a complaint against the petitioner for an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The Same was taken cognizance of by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala. The petitioner filed an application in the Court for quashing the said complaint but this Court by its order dated April 29, 1993 dismissed the application of the petitioner to quash the proceedings. Thereafter dates have been fixed for the appearance of the petitioner in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala. The stud petitioner did not appear in the Court on January 14, 1995. The learned Magistrate issued non -bailable warrants against the accused. Then the petitioner moved this Court by filing the Revision Petition 45 of 1995. This Court by an order dated January 24, 1995 stayed the execution of non -bailable warrants and directed the petitioner to appear before the learned Magistrate on February 2, 1995. Accordingly the petitioner appeared before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala on February 2, 1995. On that date the Magistrate forfeited the bail bond and surety bonds of the petitioner and directed the release of the petitioner on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ - with one surety of the like amount. The petitioner furnished the bail bonds as directed. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to February 17, 1995. On that date the petitioner moved an application in this Court and was present in this Court. As the petitioner was not present in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, the learned Magistrate again issued non -bailable warrants to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that his request for exemption was not considered by the Magistrate. He further stated that the learned Magistrate erred in forfeiting the bail bond, and surety bonds without issuing notice to him or to the surety before forfeiture. The learned counsel for the respondent -defecto -complainant submits that the case was filed in 1991 and that the petitioner is delaying the disposal of the proceedings by absenting himself in the Court. The learned counsel for the defecto -complainant further submits that the petitioner may be directed to appear before the learned - Magistrate on the dates of hearing and that the order forfeiting the bail bond and the surety on February 2, 1995 may be set aside as no notice admittedly was given to the petitioner and his surety.

(3.) WITH the above directions, the revision petition and the connected petition stand disposed of. Revision disposed of