Karnal Sanjay Vs. State of Haryana and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1039185
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMay-10-2013
AppellantKarnal Sanjay
RespondentState of Haryana and Another
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crm not m-15512 of 201.date of decision :10. h may, 2013 karnal sanjay …. petitioner versus state of haryana and another …. respondents coram : hon’ble mr.justice l.n.mittal **** present : mr.sanjay vashisht, advocate for the petitioner. **** l.n.mittal, j. (oral) accused-karnal sanjay has filed this petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure (in short, cr.p.c.) impugning order dated 29.04.2013 annexure p-16 passed by learned chief judicial magistrate, faridabad, thereby cancelling the conditional bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 15.04.2013 annexure p-10. in view of compromise annexure p-8 effected between the parties, learned magistrate vide order annexure p-10 granted conditional bail to the petitioner-accused, subject to compliance of conditions of the compromise. however, the petitioner failed to comply with the said conditions and consequently, respondent no.2-complainant moved application annexure p-12 for cancellation of the bail of the petitioner. the petitioner by filing reply annexure p-15 contested the aforesaid application. crm no.m-15512 of 201.-2- however, learned trial magistrate vide impugned order annexure p-16 has cancelled the conditional bail granted to the petitioner vide order annexure p-10. feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-accused has filed this petition assailing order annexure p-16. i have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. counsel for the petitioner raised twofold contention. it was argued that the petitioner had sought exemption from his personal appearance on 23.04.2013 on the ground of his accident and the case was adjourned to 05.06.2013 and, therefore, the conditional bail stood extended till 05.06.2013. it was also argued that the petitioner could not supply the garments in question in terms of compromise, without furnishing of requisite documents by the complainant and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the compromise. both the aforesaid contentions are completely fallacious. the petitioner wants to take undue advantage of the sympathy shown to him by the court by exempting his personal appearance on 23.04.2013. even assuming that the conditional bail order stood extended to 05.06.2013-the next date of hearing, even then it was conditional bail order and the petitioner had to comply with the conditions of the compromise. however, admittedly the petitioner did not supply the garments to the complainant in terms of the compromise and thus violated the conditions of the bail order. consequently the conditional bail order has been rightly cancelled by the trial magistrate. crm no.m-15512 of 201.-3- as regards the contention regarding supply of requisite documents by the complainant, there was no such condition in the compromise annexure p-8. consequently, the petitioner cannot take shelter under the said contention. the petitioner has abused the process of the court by availing of conditional bail by effecting compromise and then by not complying with the conditions of the compromise and the bail order and also by not surrendering to the process of law in spite of the cancellation of his bail. counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has not yet surrendered. thus the petitioner is liable to be burdened with heavy costs for the gross abuse of the process of court. the instant petition is not only meritless but also frivolous and vexatious. impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference at the hands of this court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 482 cr.p.c.accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed with cost of ` 20,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the registry of this court. if the costs amount is not deposited within one month from today, the case shall be listed for this purpose. however, the registry shall accept the cost amount as and when sought to be deposited. 10th may, 2013 (l.n.mittal) ‘raj’ judge
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM not M-15512 OF 201.DATE OF DECISION :

10. h MAY, 2013 Karnal Sanjay ….

Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ….

Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL **** Present : Mr.Sanjay Vashisht, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** L.N.MITTAL, J.

(ORAL) Accused-Karnal Sanjay has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) impugning order dated 29.04.2013 Annexure P-16 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, thereby cancelling the conditional bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 15.04.2013 Annexure P-10.

In view of compromise Annexure P-8 effected between the parties, learned Magistrate vide order Annexure P-10 granted conditional bail to the petitioner-accused, subject to compliance of conditions of the compromise.

However, the petitioner failed to comply with the said conditions and consequently, respondent No.2-complainant moved application Annexure P-12 for cancellation of the bail of the petitioner.

The petitioner by filing reply Annexure P-15 contested the aforesaid application.

CRM NO.M-15512 OF 201.-2- However, learned trial Magistrate vide impugned order Annexure P-16 has cancelled the conditional bail granted to the petitioner vide order Annexure P-10.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-accused has filed this petition assailing order Annexure P-16.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner raised twofold contention.

It was argued that the petitioner had sought exemption from his personal appearance on 23.04.2013 on the ground of his accident and the case was adjourned to 05.06.2013 and, therefore, the conditional bail stood extended till 05.06.2013.

It was also argued that the petitioner could not supply the garments in question in terms of compromise, without furnishing of requisite documents by the complainant and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the compromise.

Both the aforesaid contentions are completely fallacious.

The petitioner wants to take undue advantage of the sympathy shown to him by the Court by exempting his personal appearance on 23.04.2013.

Even assuming that the conditional bail order stood extended to 05.06.2013-the next date of hearing, even then it was conditional bail order and the petitioner had to comply with the conditions of the compromise.

However, admittedly the petitioner did not supply the garments to the complainant in terms of the compromise and thus violated the conditions of the bail order.

Consequently the conditional bail order has been rightly cancelled by the trial Magistrate.

CRM NO.M-15512 OF 201.-3- As regards the contention regarding supply of requisite documents by the complainant, there was no such condition in the compromise Annexure P-8.

Consequently, the petitioner cannot take shelter under the said contention.

The petitioner has abused the process of the Court by availing of conditional bail by effecting compromise and then by not complying with the conditions of the compromise and the bail order and also by not surrendering to the process of law in spite of the cancellation of his bail.

Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has not yet surrendered.

Thus the petitioner is liable to be burdened with heavy costs for the gross abuse of the process of court.

The instant petition is not only meritless but also frivolous and vexatious.

Impugned order of the trial Court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed with cost of ` 20,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the Registry of this Court.

If the costs amount is not deposited within one month from today, the case shall be listed for this purpose.

However, the Registry shall accept the cost amount as and when sought to be deposited.

10th May, 2013 (L.N.MITTAL) ‘raj’ JUDGE