Mrs. P. Usha vs M/S Jagdish Rice Mills on 4 August, 2008

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                             CHANDIGARH.




                                           Criminal Misc. 37785-M of 2007

                                 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 4, 2008



MRS. P. USHA                                         ....... PETITIONER(S)

                                 VERSUS

M/S JAGDISH RICE MILLS, JALALABAD                    .... RESPONDENT(S)




CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA


PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay Tangri, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
         Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate, for respondent.


AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)

This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure,

has been filed for quashing Criminal Complaint No.289-2 (Annexure P-1)

pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalalabad, as also

summoning order dated 29.1.2003 (Annexure P-2) and order dated

7.2.2007 (Annexure P-3), vide which the petitioner was declared a

Proclaimed Offender.

Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the

petition. The contention of the learned counsel is that without doubt,

earlier the petitioner was a Director, however, before the issue of cheque on

7.8.2000, she ceased to be a Director as is clearly made out from Form 32
Criminal Misc. 37785-M of 2007 /2/

(Annexure P-5) issued under the Companies Act, showing the change in

the structure/constitution of the company. For reasons beyond the control

of the petitioner, she could not appear before the trial Court and, therefore,

she was declared a Proclaimed Offender vide order (Annexure P-3). The

documents in support of the application for exemption from personal

appearance could not be supplied.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it

would be appropriate to allow the petitioner to appear before the trial

Court on 18.8.2008. The petitioner would be at liberty to file a fresh

application seeking exemption from personal appearance along with the

documents on which she places reliance.

So far as quashing of the complaint is concerned, in view of

the fact that the documents appended with the petition would need to be

proved on record before the trial Court under the Indian Evidence Act, no

ground for interference is made out.

The petition is disposed of with a specific direction that the

petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on 18.8.2008 and shall be

released on bail on furnishing fresh bonds/surety. The petitioner shall be

at liberty to file a fresh application seeking exemption from personal

appearance, as observed in the earlier part of the order. The trial

Magistrate shall consider such application and pass appropriate orders.

August 4, 2008                                            ( AJAI LAMBA )
Kang                                                              JUDGE