SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/1120929 |
Court | Punjab and Haryana High Court |
Decided On | Jan-24-2014 |
Appellant | Gursewak Singh |
Respondent | Mukhtiar Singh and Another |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRL.
MISC.
No.M-40315 OF2013DATE OF DECISION : 24th JANUARY, 2014 Gursewak Singh ….
Petitioner Versus Mukhtiar Singh & another ….
Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA **** Present : Mr.Jatinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Mr.Arshdeep Singh Kler, AAG, Punjab.
**** SURINDER GUPTA, J.
(ORAL) Respondent no.1-Mukhtiar Singh filed complaint against Paramjit Kaur and otheRs.leveling allegation that Paramjit Kaur accused claiming to be the wife of his brother Hakem Singh who was living in Philippines fabricated his Will and got the mutation of the property of Hakem Singh situated in Village Bhagike, P.S.Nihal Singh Wala, sanctioned in her favour.
The mother of the complainant challenged that Will and it came to the notice of the complainant that the Will which was prepared by accused Paramjit Kaur in connivance with accused nos.2 and 3 was having forged signatures of complainant.
Vide agreement dated 24.03.2007 Paramjit Kaur agreed to sell her property to the petitioner and another accused Manmohan Singh.
The complainant was ordered to be summoned in that case in the year 2009 and he put in appearance.
It has been submitted during the couRs.of arguments that the petitioner is permanent resident and citizen of Canada.
He is having his CRL.
MISC.
NO.M-40315 OF2013-2- business there and is managing the affair of his business single handedly.
In order to file the returns, audit the accounts, he has to go back to Canada.
His passport issued by the Canadian Government is also going to expire on 31.01.2014.
The visit of the petitioner to Canada is required to get the passport renewed.
Paramjit Kaur accused named in complaint was also resident of Philippines and was wife of Hakem Singh.
The respondent, in order to grab the property of Hakem Singh, has implicated petitioner and other non-resident Indians by filing false complaint.
The petitioner moved application to the trial Court for permission to go abroad and return of his passport, which has been deposited under the order of this Court.
His request has been declined by the trial Court on the ground that earlier he had gone to Canada once with the permission of the Court and twice without permission.
Learned counsel for the respondent has resisted the permission sought by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner earlier left India without permission twice and the Court had to issue his non-bailable warrant to procure his presence.
It has been admitted during the couRs.of the arguments that the petitioner is Canadian citizen.
He is having his business there and earning his livelihood from that business.
The complaint was filed in the year 2009 and despite appearance of the complainant in the Court in the year 2009 it is still at the stage of pre-charge evidence.
Much stress has been put on the fact that earlier the petitioner had gone to Canada without permission of this Court.
This fact was also brought to the notice of this CRL.
MISC.
NO.M-40315 OF2013-3- Court while his application for bail was disposed of in CRM-M-16054 of 2013 vide order dated 30.05.2013.
While allowing the bail, the condition was imposed that the petitioner shall not absent in future without the permission of the Court.
Thereafter the petitioner has been regularly appearing before the trial Court.
Even on earlier occasion when he had gone to look after his business and allied activities in Canada, he returned.
Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances and that the petitioner wants to go to Canada with permission of the Court, I find no impediment in allowing his application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner will have no objection in case the evidence of the complainant is recorded in his absence.
He has further submitted that the counsel for the petitioner will cross-examine the witnesses and shall not pray for adjournment on the ground of non-appearance of the petitioner.
The petitioner is granted permission to go to Canada.
He will return before 30.04.2014.
The passport of the petitioner lying deposited in the Court shall be returned to him, which he will deposit in fiRs.week of May 2014.
He will furnish surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
The trial Court may take heavy surety to ensure the return of the petitioner to face the trial.
The petition is allowed, subject to the above conditions.
24th JANUARY, 2014 (SURINDER GUPTA) GUPTA) ‘raj’ JUDGE Raj Kumar 2014.01.27 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh