Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

"Justice Prevails in Balancing Personal Liberty and Societal Interests," Rules Punjab and Haryana High Court in Overturning Proclaimed Person Declaration

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, set aside an order declaring Birender Singh a proclaimed person in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The ruling, made on December 12, 2023, emphasizes the need for fair and reasonable procedures in criminal proceedings, aligning with the principles of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Justice Brar, in his oral judgment, underscored the importance of a meticulous approach in legal proceedings, stating, "While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain a healthy balance between personal liberty of the individual-accused and interests of the society in promoting law and order." This observation highlights the court's focus on upholding the delicate balance between individual rights and societal justice.

The case (CRM-M No. 62379 of 2023) involved the petitioner, Birender Singh, challenging the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh, on September 30, 2023. The court had declared Singh a proclaimed person due to his non-appearance in the ongoing trial. Singh's counsel argued that his failure to appear was due to medical reasons, and the absence of an application for exemption from appearance led to the issuance of non-bailable warrants.

In a critical appraisal of the trial court's proceedings, Justice Brar noted procedural lapses, particularly the failure to comply with the mandatory conditions specified in Section 82 (2) of the Cr.P.C. The judgment referenced similar cases, including Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab and Sonu Vs. State of Haryana, to reinforce the mandatory nature of these procedural requirements.

Concluding the proceedings, the High Court allowed the petition, directing Singh to appear before the trial court within 15 days and fulfill the necessary bail and surety bond requirements. The court also imposed costs on Singh for wasting the court's time, ordering a payment of Rs.10,000 to the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh.

This judgment is a reminder of the judicial system's role in ensuring that procedural fairness is not overshadowed in the pursuit of justice, particularly in cases involving individual liberties.

 

Decided on: 12-12-2023

 

BIRENDER SINGH VERSUS  UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER

Latest Legal News