Rekha Mittal, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court by invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.") for quashing FIR No. 44 dated 7.6.2005 for offence under Sections 447, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") (Sections 379, 506 and 186 IPC deleted later), registered at Police Station, Badhni Kalan, Moga (Annexure P -1), order dated 23.11.2011 (Annexure P -3) and proceedings emanating therefrom.
(2.) ON December 06, 2013, the order passed by this Court reads as follows: - The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 44 dated 7.6.2005 for offence under Sections 447, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (Sections 379, 506 and 186 IPC deleted later), registered at Police Station Badhni Kalan Moga, District Moga as well as order dated 23.11.2011 (Annexure P -3) whereby the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed offender. Counsel for the petitioner would contend that he confines his prayer to assail order dated 23.11.2011 whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offence during his absence from India as he went to Canada in 2006 and came back to India only on 27.11.2013. It is further submitted that the co accused in the case have been acquitted of the offence by the trial Court vide judgment dated 25.9.2013 (Annexure P -6). The petitioner is ready to face trial without any default. Notice of motion for 11.2.2014. In the meantime, the petitioner shall surrender before the trial Court concerned within 10 days and the trial Court will release him on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to its satisfaction subject to the conditions to be imposed by the Court. Counsel for the petitioner contends that in pursuance of order dated December 06, 2013, the petitioner surrendered before the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nihal Singh Wala and was released on bail on 16.12.2013. It is further submitted that the petitioner would attend to the proceedings before the trial court without any default.
(3.) COUNSEL for the State of Punjab has not made any submissions to controvert the averments set up in the petition and arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner.;