MOHD HUSSANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the misc. petition, petitioner Mohd. Hussani s/o. Mohd. Sadiq Teli r/o.Ward No.23, Ratangarh, Distt. Churu has prayed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. Although in the relief clause it has been averred that petitioner has only prayed to restore the proceedings initiated after discharge by the learned trial court but in ground No.9 of the petition it has been specifically averred that proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sections 82 and 83 deserve to be quashed.

(2.) The brief facts arising out of this petition are that on 27.03.1995 a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for offence under Section 279 of the IPC and on 22.08.1996 the learned trial court on the basis of Common Cause Society judgment dropped the proceedings and discharged the petitioner. However, on dated 13.06.1997, the learned trial court suo moto reopened the case of the petitioner on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court while reviewing the earlier order of Common Cause Society judgment. The summons were issued against the petitioner but it could not be served. On 27.06.1999 the Tehsildar informed the trial court regarding the seizure of the property of the petitioner and regarding the effect of the binding proceedings of the property of the petitioner. On 24.09.1909, a bailable warrant was received unserved and after recording the evidence of Ibrahim Khan constable, the learned trial court declared the petitioner absconder and ordered to initiate the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by this order, the present misc. petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 24.09.1999, the learned trial court ordered to initiate the proceedings under Section 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. against the present petitioner and declared the petitioner as proclaimed offender and ordered to attach the property of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this order of the learned trial court amounts to an abuse of the process of law because earlier summons were issued against the accused and even in the last bailable warrant a report was received regarding this fact that petitioner is out of India and simply when a person is out of India it cannot be said that he is avoiding the service of the court and, therefore, the learned trial court has no grounds to declare the accused petitioner as proclaimed offender. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument has relied upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court 1977 (NOC) 187 in the matter of MSR Gundappa v. State of Karnataka.