CRM-M-42414-2025 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM-M-42414-2025 Date of Decision:-08.08.2025 Harpinder Singh @ Bhupinder Singh. ......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab. ......Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present:- Mr. V.K. Kaushal, Advocate for Mr. Charitr Kadyan, Advocate for the Petitioner. *** JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL) The prayer in the second petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of the impugned order dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure P-1) vide which the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed person/offender in case FIR No.136 dated 11.08.2015 registered under Section 21-A of the Mining Act, 1957 read with Section 379 IPC registered at P.S. Kamboj Amritsar. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner came to be nominated as an accused in the FIR No.136 dated 11.08.2015 registered under Sections 21-A of the Mining Act, 1957 read with Section 379 IPC. On conclusion of the investigation, the report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC was presented. The petitioner was granted the concession of bail. Later, as he absconded from the trial, he was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure P-1). He preferred his first petition VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.08.11 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-42414-2025 #2# seeking quashing of the said order and after arguing at some length as the court was not inclined to quash the said order, the petition came to be withdrawn on 15.07.2024 (Annexure P-9). The order is reproduced hereinbelow:- “ After arguing for sometime, learned Counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the petition. The petition is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn.” 3. The instant second petition has now been filed challenging the same order. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner while raising the same arguments as raised earlier contends that the change in circumstances is that as the co- accused faced trial, came to be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment to the period already undergone by them vide judgment dated 20.07.2024 (Annexure P-10). Therefore, the impugned order was liable to be set aside. 5. The Counsel for the State on the other hand contends that the first petition preferred by the petitioner came to be argued and withdrawn more than 01 year ago. Merely because the co-accused came to be convicted would not be a ground to quash the impugned order in view of the conduct of the petitioner. He contends, that even otherwise, the instant petition has been filed more than 01 year after the judgment of conviction of the co- accused on 20.07.2024 (Annexure P-10) which only goes to show that the petitioner has little regard for the law. He therefore contends that the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties. 7. Apparently, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure P-1). The aforementioned order was VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.08.11 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-42414-2025 #3# challenged before this court and after arguing at some length as the court was not convinced, the counsel for the petitioner withdrew the said petition on 15.07.2024. Thereafter his co-accused came to be convicted vide judgment dated 20.07.2024. The instant second petition has been filed without any change in material circumstances whatsoever. Quite to the contrary, the petitioner is playing hide and seek with not only the Trial Court but this court as well. He has scant regard for the law and has filed multiple petitions on the same cause of action. 8. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and the same stands dismissed. For filing frivolous petitions and for wasting the valuable time of the Court, the petitioner is directed to deposit a cost of Rs.15,000/- with Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association Account No.65035682434 State Bank of India High Court Branch, IFSC Code SBIN0050306 within a period of 07 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Court. 9. The Registry is directed to inform the Court about the deposit of cost by the petitioner. ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI ) JUDGE August 08, 2025 Vinay Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No VINAY MAHAJAN 2025.08.11 09:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document