Gurpreet Singh vs U.T.Chandigarh

K.P.S. Sandhu, J.

Gurpreet Singh has filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. praying therein that the proclamation issued under section 82 Cr.P.C. by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh and the warrants of arrest issued on the basis of proclamation, be quashed.

The facts which gave rise to this petition are as under :

The petitioner belongs to Patiala but has settled as a permanent citizen in Sweden. In the year 1982, the petitioner came back to India and married Smt. Gunwant Kaur daughter of complainant (respondent No. 2) Jagdeep Singh Ramana on 21.2.1982. The petitioner again left for Sweden on 4.3.1982, leaving behind Smt. Gunwant Kaur, his wife. Smt. Gunwant Kaur also left for Sweden on 1.7.1982 to join the petitioner there. However, the petitioner sent her back to India on 16.11.1982. Since then she is staying with the complainant (respondent No.2).

Smt. Gunwant Kaur informed her father respondent No. 2 that the petitioner was already married in Sweden. Respondent No. 2 lodged first information report on 26.7.1983 at Police Station East, Chandigarh alleging therein that Shri Niranjan Singh Sandhu, father of the petitioner, Smt. Balbir Kaur, mother of the petitioner and Gurlal Singh Sandhu and Gurmeet Singh Sandhu, his brothers and the petitioner, all residents of Ragh Majra, Patiala, after entering into a conspiracy and knowing fully well that Gurpreet Singh petitioner was already married to one Mrs. Lilian Singh Sandhu, resident of Cothanborg Sweden with dishonest intention and fraudulent concealment of the facts, induced him to believe that the petitioner was unmarried and with this inducement made him agree for a matrimonial alliance in between the petitioner and Gunwant Kaur, his daughter who had done B.A. in History from Punjabi University, Patiala and they have also dishonestly misappropriated the articles of dowry given to Smt. Gunwant Kaur and thus they have committed an offence under section 406/420 read with section 120B Indian Penal Code.

The Chandigarh Police searched for the petitioner, but since he could not be available, the police made an application before the Magistrate for issuance of proclamation to declare the petitioner as proclaimed offender since he was absconding and was living in Sweden. The Magistrate issued the impugned proclamation and the warrant of arrest as per the request of the police.

The main contention raised by Mr. M.S. Rakkar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner is a permanent resident of Sweden and had left for Sweden much earlier to the lodging of the first information report, it could not be said that he was absconding, so no proclamation and warrants for his arrest could be issued. To support his contention Mr. Rakkar, has relied upon a single Bench authority of the Karnataka High Court reported as Shri M.S.R. Gundappa v. State of Karnataka, 1977 Crl. L.J. (NOC) 187. On the other hand, Mr. G. Chaudhary learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has placed reliance on a Full Bench authority of the Madras High Court reported as K.T.M.S. Abdul Cader and others v. The Union of India, A.I.R. 1977 Madras 386 wherein their Lordships were pleased to hold as under :

"In these cases, two of the petitioners are admittedly citizens of India and the other even though a noncitizen, is having residence in India as his family continues to have residence in India. As already stated, it is impossible to believe that the petitioners have no knowledge of the detention order passed against them and they are remaining abroad for bona fide purposes and not with a view to avoid or evade the detention order. Even though the petitioners have left India before the passing of the detention order, if they continue to remain outside,India with a view to defeat or delay the execution of the detention order, they have to be taken to be absconding persons. It has been held in Jagdev Khan v. Emperor, AIR 1948 Lah. 151 : (58 Crl. L.J. 624) that the onus of proving that the accused did not abscond for the purpose of avoiding execution of warrant of arrest and that he had no notice of the proclamation issued under S. 87 of the old Cr.P.C. lies on the accused. In these cases we are of the view that the petitioners have not discharged their onus. Even assuming that they did not leave the country in anticipation of the detention order being passed against them, they should have become aware of the detention order through their family members who admittedly reside here. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that they cannot be taken to be persons absconding or concealing themselves with a view to evade the warrant of arrest."

The coaccused of the petitioner who are his family members are admittedly living in India and have property in Patiala. The photostat copy of the marriage certificate placed on the record by respondent No.2 shows that the petitioner gave his address as 3957/2, Old Police Line Street, Ragho Majra, Patiala (Punjab).

The petitioner through his counsel shri M.S. Rakkar filed an application before the trial Magistrate for recalling the proclamation which was decline. The petitioner has come up in this Court through the same counsel under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In this situation, it cannot be said that the petitioner does not have the knowledge of the proceedings against him. Even if assumed that the petitioner did not leave the country in anticipation of the proceedings to be initiated against him, it cannot be said that he does not have the knowledge of the proceedings against him. There is no substance in the contention advanced by Mr. Rakkar that the petitioner cannot be taken to be person absconding or concealing him with a view to evade his arrest. Consequently, I do not find any force in this petition which I hereby dismiss.