Gurbinder Kaur and Another vs M/s. Sangam Spinners

Rekha Mittal, J.—The petitioners pray for quashing complaint No. 1777 dated 28.04.2011/19.08.2011 (Annexure P8), summoning order dated 28.04.2011 (Annexure P9), subsequent orders dated 25.05.2011, 16.09.2011 and 21.10.2011 (Annexures P10 to P12) respectively passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana. Notice of motion was issued on March 01, 2012 and in the meanwhile operation of impugned order dated 21.10.2011 (Annexure P12) vide which the petitioners have been declared as proclaimed offenders, had to remain stayed.

On May 06, 2013, this Court passed the following order:-

After hearing learned counsel for the respondent, order dated 1.3.2012 is modified. The petitioners shall appear before the Court which had issued notice and deposit the entire amount of the cheque in question. They shall also surrender before the said Court on or before 22.5.2013. In case they do so, they shall not be arrested and they shall be required to furnish surety to the satisfaction of the said Court.

The aforesaid modification has been necessitated keeping in view the fact that the petitioners had stayed away from the proceedings. They have now raised a plea that the provisions of Section 202 Cr. P.C. have not been complied with and that bailable warrants were issued on the basis of statement made by learned counsel for the complainant. All these pleas shall be permitted to be taken up by the petitioners without prejudice to their rights and the present order is intended only to ensure their participation in the process, the progress of which has been hostage due to the absence of the petitioners.

Adjourned to 14.8.2013.

The petitioners filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 31524 of 2013, which was disposed of on 10.07.2013. A relevant extract from order passed on 10.07.2013 reads as follows:-

This application is disposed of with the solitary observation which shall be read as a part of the order dated 6.5.2013 passed by this Court:-

If the entire amount as directed in the said order is deposited, the same shall not be disbursed to the complainant during the pendency of the proceedings.

The amount, if not deposited, be deposited within a period of one week from today.

A perusal of order passed on May 06, 2013 makes it evident that the petitioners were directed to appear before the Court, which had issued notice and deposit the entire amount of cheque in question which was not to be disbursed to the complainant during pendency of the proceedings in view of order passed on 10.07.2013.

The petitioners, admittedly, neither put in appearance before the trial court nor deposited the amount of the cheque in question, despite order passed on 10.07.2013 extending time to deposit the amount within one week from that date.

Counsel for the petitioners has fairly conceded that the petitioners have failed to comply with order passed by this Court on 06.05.2013 and 10.07.2013.

Counsel for the respondent contends that as the petitioners failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court, they do not deserve indulgence of this Court in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr. P.C. Counsel for the petitioners has nothing to say in reply.

Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioners that they failed to surrender before the trial Court and deposit the amount of cheque in question, they cannot be permitted to invoke jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 Cr. P.C. which is extra ordinary in nature and to be used sparingly to prevent abuse of process of law. The petitioners, in my considered opinion, are guilty of abusing the process of law, which disentitles them to seek any indulgence. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the petition is dismissed.