Skipped trial, accused not eligible to challenge PO order, rules High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, February 18

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that an accused, who disengages himself from the trial despite its knowledge and makes a mockery of law, is not entitled to seek the quashing of criminal proceedings.

The assertion by Justice Namit Kumar of the high court came in a case where an accused in a cheque-bounce case intentionally evaded the service of summons, besides bailable and non-bailable warrants, before being declared a proclaimed offender in October last year.

Court's opinion

The court is of the opinion that a proclaimed offender, who had failed to associate with the trial proceedings despite knowledge, is not entitled to seek quashing of criminal proceedings. —Justice Namit Kumar

The matter was placed before Justice Kumar after the petitioner-accused approached the court for quashing the order dated October 19, 2022, passed by the Gurdaspur Judicial Magistrate First Class, declaring him a proclaimed offender in the proceedings arising from a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Taking up the matter, Justice Kumar observed the trial court after declaring the accused proclaimed offender fixed the case for filing the list of his properties for attaching the same. The case was now fixed for April before the trial court for the purpose.

Justice Kumar asserted it was clear that the petitioner had misused the process of law and evaded the service of summons, besides bailable and non-bailable warrants, intentionally and deliberately. As such, he was rightly been declared a PO.

Refusing to accept his counsel's contention that the petitioner was unaware of the court procedure, Justice Kumar asserted he was a law student, pursuing LLB course. A comparative analysis of the facts would reveal that the petitioner voluntarily disengaged himself from the trial proceedings and made a mockery of law.

Justice Kumar added it had been held by the high courts and the Supreme Court that the inherent powers were to be used sparingly and with circumspection. These could not be exercised in a routine manner, much less for the convenience of the accused.

Making it clear that the conduct of the petitioner-accused was to be accorded importance, Justice Kumar added: "The court is of the opinion that a proclaimed offender, who failed to associate with the trial proceedings despite knowledge, is not entitled to invoke the inherent powers of this court to seek quashing of criminal proceedings".

Holding the petition to be without merits, Justice Kumar dismissed the same keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner's conduct and settled proposition of law. "This court is not inclined to invoke its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC," Justice Kumar concluded.

from The Tribune https://ift.tt/2xMZAcp