Application For Exemption

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE, PATIALA.
(MS.SURINDERPAL KAUR)
Gurjant Singh Vs Gurwinder Singh and others
FIR No. 0198 dated 16.12.2016

U/s 323,325,452,148,149,504,506 of IPC.
P.S . Sadar Samana, Distt. Patiala
*********
Application for personal exemption of Accused
Avtar singh Singh.
*************
Sir,
It is respectfully submitted as under:-
1. That the above noted case is pending in this Hon’ble Court

and fixed for today.
2. That accused has informed undersigned counsel through
telephonic message that accused is out of station, as such he
is unable to present before this Hon’ble Court today.
3. That the absence of the accused is not willful or intentional
but bonafide.
4. That accused has no objection if any evidence is recorded in
his absence.
It is, therefore, prayed that the application may kindly be

accepted and the personal appearance of the accused Gurwinder
Singh may kindly be exempted for today, in the interest of justice.
Submitted by:
Dated: 20.07.2022
…..Accused
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh Gheeray

Advocate, Patiala
IN THE COURT OF MS LOVEPREET KAUR SWAICH , PCS JMIC,
PATIALA
State Versus Nirmal Singh
FIR 82 dated 2015

U/s 420 IPC
P.S Sanour , Patiala
***********
Application for exemption from personal
appearance of the accused Dalbir Singh.
***********
Sir,
1. That the above noted case is pending before this Hon’ble

Court and fixed for today.
2. That accused has informed that he is out of station for
urgent work, as such, he is unable to appear before this
Hon’ble Court for today.
3. That absence of the accused is neither intentional nor willful
but due to the reason stated above.
4. That accused has no objection if any evidence recorded in his
absence and will not dispute her identity.
It is, therefore, prayed that the application may kindly

be accepted and the personal appearance of accused Dalbir
Singh may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by:
Dated:-10.06.2022
…..accused
Through Counsel:
N.S.RATHOL
Advocate, Patiala
BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATOR CUM COMMISSIONER,

PATIALA DIVISION, PATIALA
Karnail Kaur VS Union of India
In the matter of arbitration claim petition

**********
Application for adjournment due the death of
petitioner.
***********
Sir,
2. That the undersigned counsel came to know the fact that
petitioner Karnail Kaur has expired on __________. Copy of death
certificate is attached herewith.
3. That the present petition has been filed through her power of
attorney and due to death of Karnail Kaur the said power of
attorney stands automatically cancelled.
4. That now legal representative of petitioner Karnail Kaur is likely
to required to impleaded in the present case, as such present
case may kindly be adjourned for filling of the application for
impleading the Legal Representatives of deceased Karnail Kaur.
be accepted and the case may kindly be adjourn to the next
date of hearing, in the interest of justice.
Submitted by
Dated:- 04.03.2021
….Petitioner
Through Counsel
GAGANDEEP SINGH GHEERAY

Advocate , Patiala.
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, PATIALA

(MS. MANILA CHUGH)
State VS Damanpreet Kaur & Ors
FIR NO.56 dated 11.04.2019

U/S 306/34 IPC
P.S. Urban Estate, Distt.Patiala
**********
Application for exemption for accused
Damanpreet Kaur, Harbhajan Singh and Sumanjit
Kaur.
***********
Sir,
1. That the above noted case is pending in this Hon’ble

2. That the counsel of accused got a telephonic message that

accused Damanpreet Kaur, Harbhajan Singh and Sumanjit
Kaur have gone out of station for their personal work, as
such, they are unable to appear before this Hon’ble Court
today.
3. That the absence of accused is neither intentional nor

willful, but due to the reason stated above.

be accepted and the personal appearance of accused
Damanpreet Kaur, Harbhajan Singh and Sumanjit Kaur may
kindly be exempted for today in the interest of justice.
Submitted by
Dated:-02.08.2021
….Accused
Through Counsel

Advocate
BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATOR CUM COMMISSIONER,
PATIALA DIVISION, PATIALA
Karnail Kaur VS Union of India

In the matter of arbitration claim petition
**********
Application for adjournment due the death of
petitioner.
***********
Sir,
6. That the undersigned counsel came to know the fact that
petitioner Karnail Kaur has expired on __________. Copy of death
certificate is attached herewith.
7. That the present petition has been filed through her power of
attorney and due to death of Karnail Kaur the said power of
attorney stands automatically cancelled.
8. That now legal representative of petitioner Karnail Kaur is likely
to required to impleaded in the present case, as such present
case may kindly be adjourned for filling of the application for
impleading the Legal Representatives of deceased Karnail Kaur.
be accepted and the case may kindly be adjourn to the next
date of hearing, in the interest of justice.
Submitted by
Dated:- 04.03.2021
….Petitioner
Through Counsel

Advocate , Patiala.
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA GOEL JMIC, PATIALA

State VS Nikhil Goyal
FIR NO.60 dated 18.6.2017

U/S 406/498 A IPC
PS Women PATIALA
**********
Application for exemption for witness
KIRAN GARG
***********
Sir,
5. That the counsel of complainant got a telephonic message

that due to operation of complainant Ruchika Garg, witness
Kiran Garg could not come to court, as such she is unable to
appear before this Hon’ble Court today.
6. That the absence of witness is neither intentional nor


be accepted and the personal appearance of witness Kiran
Garg may kindly be exempted for today in the interest of
justice.
Submitted by
Dated:-02.03.2021
….witness
Through Counsel for Complainant

Advocate , Patiala.
IN THE COURT OF ,PATIALA

(MS. SARU MEHTA KAUSHIK)
Ruchika Goyal VS Nikhal Goyal

********** IN THE COURT OF
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE,PATIALA
(AMANDEEP KAUR)
State VS Kulwant Singh Alias Kala
FIR NO. 40 dated 02.06.2018
U/S 398/399/402/201/411/412 IPC

PS KOTWALI PATIALA
**********
Application for exemption for accused Gurmeet
Singh Alias Tandi.
***********
Sir,
7. That the above mentioned case is pending in this Hon’ble

accused has gone out of station for his personal work, as
such he is unable to appear before this Hon’ble Court today.

10. That accused has no objection if any evidence

recorded in his absence.

Gurmeet Singh Alias Tandi may kindly be exempted for
today in the interest of justice.
Submitted by
Dated:-10.02.2021
….Proxy Counsel
SANTOSH KUMAR
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE,PATIALA
(AMANDEEP KAUR)
State VS Karor Singh
FIR NO. 80 dated 23.04.2017

U/S 323,325,506,148,149 IPC& 3(1)(G) SC/ST Act
PS Patran
**********
Application for exemption for accused Raju Yadav.
***********
Sir,
11. That the above mentioned case is pending in this
Hon’ble Court and fixed for today.
12. That the counsel of accused got a telephonic message

that accused has gone out of station for his personal work,
as such he is unable to appear before this Hon’ble Court
today.



Submitted by
Dated:-10.02.2021
….Proxy Counsel
SANTOSH KUMAR
Application for exemption for accused Gurmeet Singh Alias
Tandi.
***********
Sir,
16. That the counsel of accused got a telephonic message

today.



Submitted by
Dated:-10.02.2021
….Proxy Counsel
SANTOSH KUMAR
Gagandeep Singh Gheeray,

Prince Jindal,
Advocates, Patiala
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA GOYAL, PCS,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 1ST CLASS, PATIALA
State VERSUS Nikhil Goyal
FIR No.60/2017
u/s 406, 498-A IPC
P.S. Women, Patiala
**********
Application for exemption of personal appearance
of the witness Kiran Garg.
***********
Sir,
2. That the counsel of complainant got a telephonic message that

a witness Kiran Garg has suffering from viral fever , as such
she is unable to appear before this Hon’ble Court today.
3. That the absence of the witness Kiran Garg is neither

intentional nor willful but due to the reason stated above.

be accepted and the personal appearance of witness Kiran
Garg may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by
Dated: 02.03.2020
…. witness
Through counsel

Prince Jindal,
Advocates, Patiala
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
PATIALA
Rajwinder Kaur Versus Razia
In the matter of Criminal Complaint

***********
Application for exemption of personal appearance of
the Rajwinder Kaur.
***********
Sir,

2. That counsel of complainant has informed through telephonic

message that complainant Rajwinder Kaur has gone to out of
station for her personal work, as such, she is unable to
appear before this Hon’ble Court for today.
3. That absence of the Complainant is neither intentional nor

willful but due to the reason stated above.

be accepted and the personal appearance of complainant
Rajwinder Kaur may kindly be exempted for today.
Dated :18.08.2022
Submitted by:

Santosh Kumar,
Prince Jindal
Advocates,Patiala
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE IST CLASS, PATIALA
(MS. JUBLEE, PCS)
State Versus Amarjit Kaur & Ors
F.I.R 139 dated 20.12.2013

U/s 406/498-A IPC
P.S Women Cell, Patiala
***********
the accused Baljeet kaur .
***********
Sir,

6. That co-accused has informed that accused Amarjit Kaur is

feeling not well due to her old age, as such, she is unable to
appear before this Honble Court for today.

8. That accused has no objection if any evidence recorded in her

absence and will not dispute the identity of accused amarjit
kaur.

be accepted and the personal appearance of accused Amarjit
Kaur may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by:
Dated :05.08.2021
Co-accused
Through Counsel:

Santosh Kumar
Advocates,Patiala
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
PATIALA.
Balbir Singh Versus Varinder Singh & Ors.
In the matter of complaint.

**********
of the Accused Yashpal .
***********
Sir,

accused Yashpal has gone out of station for his personal
work, as such he is unable to appear before this Hon’ble Court
today.
6. That the absence of the accused is neither intentional nor


absence.

Yashpal may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by
Dated:
…. Accused
Through counsel

Santosh Kumar,
Advocates, Patiala
PATIALA.
Dharam Chand Versus Ram Kumar
In the matter of complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act.

**********
of the complainant Dharam Chand.
***********
Sir,

complainant Dharam Chand has gone out of station for his
personal work, as such he is unable to appear before this
Hon’ble Court today.
10. That the absence of the complainant is neither


Dharam Chand may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by
Dated:
…. Complainant
Through counsel

Santosh Kumar,
Advocates, Patiala
SAMANA.
Bakhsish Singh Versus Karanbir Singh

**********
of the complainant Bakhsish Singh.
***********
Sir,
12. That the counsel of complaiant got a telephonic message

that complainant Bakhsish Singh has gone out of station for
his personal work, as such he is unable to appear before this
13. That the absence of the complainant is neither


Bakhsish Singh may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by
Dated:
…. Complainant
Through counsel
Santosh Kumar,
Advocate, Patiala
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE IST CLASS,
PATIALA.
(SH. INDERJEET SINGH, PCS)
SBOP Versus Harmeet Kaur
In the matter of complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act.
**********
of the accused Harmeet Kaur.
***********
Sir,
15. That the father-in-law of accused come present and informed
that accused has suffering from Dengue Viral, as such he is unable
to appear before this Hon’ble Court today.
17. The accused has no objection if any evidence recorded in
her absence.

accepted and the personal appearance of accused Harmeet
Submitted by:
Dated 8.11.2017
Inder Pal Singh

Father-in-law of accused
Through Counsel:

Advocate, Patiala

PATIALA.
SBOP Versus M/s Guru Kirpa Constructions

Instruments Act.
**********
of the accused Bikramjit Singh.
***********
Sir,
1. That the above mentioned case is pending in this Hon’ble Court
2. That the father of accused come present and informed that wife of
accused has suffering from Dengue Viral and nobody else is present
to look after her, as such he is unable to appear before this Hon’ble
Court today.
4. The accused has no objection if any evidence recorded in her
absence.

accepted and the personal appearance of accused Bikramjit
Submitted by:
Dated 8.11.2017
Inder Pal Singh
Father of accused
Through Counsel:

Advocate, Patiala

PATIALA.
Jatinder Kumar Versus Ravinder Singh

Instruments Act.
**********
of the accused Ravinder Singh.
***********
Sir,
6. That the Counsel of accused received telephonic message from

accused that he has suffering from Dengue Viral, as such he is
unable to appear before this Hon’ble Court today.


absence.

accepted and the personal appearance of accused Ravinder
Submitted by:
Dated 25.10.2017
accused
Through Counsel:

Advocate, Patiala

PATIALA.
SBOP Versus Ravinder Singh

Instruments Act.
**********
of the accused Ravinder Singh.
***********
Sir,
accused that he has suffering from Dengue Viral, as such he is
unable to appear before this Hon’ble Court today.


absence.

accepted and the personal appearance of accused Ravinder
Submitted by:
Dated 25.10.2017
accused
Through Counsel:

Advocate, Patiala
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SESSION JUDEG, PATIALA
Zora Singh & Anr Vs Baljit Kaur
In the matter of Cr. appeal

******
Application for personal exemption of appellant
Jaswinder Singh Barsat.
******
Sir,
It is submitted as under:-
1. That the above noted is pending before this Hon’ble Court and fixed
for today.
2. That accused/appellant Jaswinder Singh has to go to attend last

rites of his nearest relative for today, as such he is unable to appear
before this court for today.
3. That the absence of appellant is not intentional or willful.
It is therefore, prayed that application may be accepted and

personal appearance of appellant may exempted for today only, in
the interest of justice.
Submitted by:
Dated:-29.3.2017
……..Co-Appellant
Through counsel
GAGANDEEP SINGH GHEERAY,

Advocates, Patiala
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE IST CLASS, PATIALA.

(MS. RAMANDEEP NEETU, PCS)
State Vs. Rajan Kumar
F.I.R 99 dated 18.09.2015

U/s 406/498-A IPC
P.S. Women Cell, Patiala.
**************
Application for adjournment for statement of
complainant Asha.
***********
Sir,

6. That the complainant is present before this Hon’ble court but

suddenly she is not feeling well due to low blood pressure and she
is unable to stand on her foot, as such could not depose today
before this Hon’ble court.

accepted and the examination of complainant Asha may be adjourned
to some other date, in the interest of justice..
Submitted by:
Dated 24.03.2017
……Complainant
Through Counsel:

Advocate, Patiala
SBOP Versus Ravinder Singh

Instruments Act.

the accused Ravinder Singh.
***********
Sir,


accused that he has gone out of station for his personal work, as


her absence.

accepted and the personal appearance of accused Ravinder Singh
may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by:
Dated 17.3.2017
Ravinder Singh
accused
Through Counsel:

Advocate, Patiala
PEHOWA
State Versus Hira Lal
F.I.R 192 dated 23.12.2017

U/s 279/337/338 IPc
P.S Ismailabad
***********
the witness Amanpreet Kaur.
***********
Sir,

2. That the witness Amanpreet Kaur is suffering for viral, as

such, she is unable to appear before this Hon’ble Court for
today.
3. That the absence of the witness is neither intentional nor


be accepted and the personal appearance of witness
Amanpreet kaur may kindly be exempted for today, in the
interest of justice.
Submitted by:
Witness
Amanpreet Kaur
Through
State Versus Jai Veer
F.I.R 95 dated 19.07.2017

U/s 279/337/427 IPC
P.S Julkan, Patiala
***********
Application for exemption of personal
appearance of the accused Jai veer.
***********
Sir,

2. That accused Jai veer informed undersigned counsel through
telephonic that he has gone out of station for his urgent and
domestic work , as such, he is unable to appear before this
4. The accused has no objection if any evidence recorded in his
absence.

be accepted and the personal appearance of accused Jai Veer
Submitted by:
Dated : 28.07.2022
….Accused
Through Counsel:

SANTOSH KUMAR
Advocates, Patiala

Instruments Act.
*******
the accused Harmeet Kaur.
***********
Sir,
2. That the counsel for the accused has been informed by

Bikramjit Singh (husband of accused) that Kirat Noor
Kaur daughter of Harmeet Kaur is suffering from
Nephrelogical and she is under treatment at PGI,
Chandigarh and Harmeet Kaur is taking care of her
daughter, as such, she is unable to appear before this
3. That the absence of the accused is neither intentional

nor willful but due to the reason stated above.
4. The accused has no objection if any evidence recorded

in her absence.
accepted and the personal appearance of accused may kindly be
exempted for today.
Submitted by:
Dated 04.10.2017
Bikramjit Singh
husband of accused
Through Counsel:

Santosh Kumar
Advocates, Patiala
IN THE COURT OF COMMISIONER PATIALA DIVISION,
PATIALA.
Versus Pargat Singh
In the matter of criminal complaint.

the accused Jatinder Pal Kaur.
***********
Sir,

2. That the counsel for the accused has been informed by co-
accused that Jatinder Pal Kaur has gone out of station due to
official work, as such, she is unable to appear before this


be accepted and the personal appearance of accused may kindly be
exempted for today.
Submitted by:
Dated : 6.1.2016
co-accused
Through Counsel:

Advocate, Patiala
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 1ST CLASS,
PATIALA.
(SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PCS)
M/s Kiddy’s Camp Vs H.S.Hoon
In the matter of Complaint

*********
Kirpal Singh Sandhu.
*************
Sir,

2. That the accused is admitted in CMC, Hospital Ludhiana for

his Bye-Pass surgery, as such he is unable to present before
this Hon’ble Court today.

but bonafide.

absence.

accepted and the personal appearance of the accused may kindly
be exempted for today, in the interest of justice.
Submitted by:
Dated: 05.05.2016
….. Accused
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Santosh Kumar
Advocates, Patiala

PATIALA.
(MS. KAMAL VARINDER, PCS)
M/s Fashion Shoppy Vs K.S. Sandhu

*********
*************
Sir,

6. That the accused K.S.Sandhu has been admitted in C.M.C
Ludhiana for his Bye-Pass surgery, as such he is unable to
present before this Hon’ble Court today.
but bonafide.
absence.

Submitted by:
Dated: 29.04.2016
….. Accused
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Santosh Kumar
Advocates, Patiala

Surinder Kumar Vs. Mohan Lal & Ors
In the matter of complaint U/s

406/419/420/465/467/468/471/120-B of IPC
*********
Application for personal exemption of

Complainant Surinder Kumar
*************
Sir,

2. That today Complainant Surinder Kumar has been gone out

of station for some personal work, as such he is unable to
3. That the absence of the Complainant is not willful or

intentional but bonafide.

accepted and the personal appearance of the Complainant
Surinder Kumar may kindly be exempted for today, in the
Submitted by:
Dated: 28.04.2016
…..
Complainant/Applicant
Through counsel:
(Gagandeep Singh)
Advocates, Patiala.
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE , NDPS PATIALA
State Vs Nirmal Singh
F.I.R No. 196 dated 02.10.2016

U/s 21/61/85 NDPS Act
PS Patran, Patiala.
*********
Shinder Singh alias Sonu
*************
Sir,

2. That the Counsel of accused received telephonis message
as he is unable to attend this court.
3. That the absence accused is not willful or intentional but
bonafide.

accepted and the personal appearance of the accused Mandeep
Submitted by:
Dated: 29.2.2016
…….. Accused
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Advocate, Patiala

PATIALA.
(MS. DIPTI GOYAL, PCS)

*********
*************
Sir,

10. That the accused has gone out of station for some personal
work, as such he is unable to present before this Hon’ble
Court today.
but bonafide.
absence.
Submitted by:
Dated: 17.10.2015
….. Accused
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Kirandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SESSION JUDGE, PATIALA.

(SH.RAJINDER AGGARWAL)
State Vs Soni
FIR No.73 dated 26.7.2014

U/s22/61/85 N D P S Act
P.S. Bakhshi Wala Patiala.
*********
Soni Singh
*************
Sir,
1 That the above noted case is pending in this Hon’ble Court

2 That today accused Nirmal Singh informed the counsel

through telephonic message that he has gone out of station,
as such he is unable to present before this Hon’ble Court
today.
3 That the absence of the accused is not willful or intentional

but bonafide.

Submitted by:
Dated: 18.09.2015
….. Accused/Applicant
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Rajbir Singh
Advocates, Patiala
State Vs Soni Singh

*********
Application for personal exemption of Complainant
*************
Sir,

3. That the complainant has informed the counsel by telephonic

message that he been gone out station for some personal work
, as such he is unable to present before this Hon’ble Court
today.
4. That the absence of the complainant is not willful or

accepted and the personal appearance of the complainant may
kindly be exempted for today, in the interest of justice.
Submitted by:
Dated: 04.06.2015
Complainent
Through counsel:
Munish Mittal
Kirandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala

PATIALA.
(MS.DEEPTI GOYAL)
Rajinder Singh Vs. Anup Singh

Contractor
In the matter of Complaint U/s 138 of N.I.Act

*********
Complainant Rajinder Singh.
*************
Sir,

2 That the complainant Rajinder Singh informed the counsel
that he has gone out of station due to some family reason, as
such he is unable to present before this Hon’ble Court today.
3 That the absence of the complainant is not willful or

Submitted by:
Dated: 23.10.2015
Complainant
Through counsel:
Kirandeep Singh Bhathal

Advocate, Patiala.

PATIALA.
(MS.DEEPTI GOYAL)
Amrinder Singh Vs. Manisha Rani

*********
Application for personal exemption of accused
Manisha Rani.
*************
Sir,

2 That the husband of accused Manisha Rani informed the
counsel that she has gone out of station due to some family
reason, as such she is unable to present before this Hon’ble
Court today.
3 That the accused Manisha Rani has no objection if any

evidence is recorded in her evidence.
but bonafide.

Submitted by:
Dated: 1.10.2015
Accused
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Rajbir Singh
Advocates, Patiala.

PATIALA.
(MS.DEEPTI GOYAL)
Gurpal Singh Vs. Madan

Chauhan

*********
Application for personal exemption Complainant
Gurpal Singh
*************
Sir,
6 That today Kuldeep Singh son of accused Amarjeet Singh

informed that accused is suffering from high fever today, as
7 That the son of accused is present in the Hon’ble court.
8 That the absence of the Accused is not willful or intentional

but bonafide.

accepted and the personal appearance of the Accused may kindly
Submitted by:
Dated: 06.04.2015
(Son of
accused)
Through counsel:
unish Mittal
Gagandeep Singh
Kirandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala.
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE, PATIALA
Gurjant Singh Vs Gurwinder Singh & Ors
In the matter of Complaint u/s

323/325/452/506/148/149 IPC
*********
Application for personal exemption accused
Avtar Singh from personal appearance.
*************
Sir,

2. That the co-accused has informed undersigned counsel that

accused Avtar Singh has to go out of station for his personal
Court today.
3. That the absence of the accused Avtar Singh is not willful or

his absence.

accepted and the personal appearance of the accused Avtar
Singh may kindly be exempted, in the interest of justice.
Submitted by:
Dated:-22.08.2022
Co-accused
Through counsel:

Advocate, Patiala.
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 1ST CLASS, PATIALA
(MS.DEEPTI GOYAL,PCS)
Narinderjit Singh Vs Iqbal Singh
In the matter of complaint U/s 138 of N.I.Act

************
Application for marking the presence of
Jatinder Singh attorney holder of complainant
Narinder Jeet Singh on behalf of him.
*************
Sir,
1. That the above noted case is pending in this Hon’ble Court and
fixed for today.
2. That the complainant Narinder Singh has executed a special power of
attorney in favour of Jatinder Singh on dated 18/3/2015 because he is
busy in his business work and he is remained out of state for his
business purpose, as such he cannot appeared before the Hon’abe
court.
3. That the Jatinder Singh will be appeared on each and every
hearing on behalf of complainant Narinder Singh and attorney
holder is well concerned with facts of present case.
accepted, in the interest of justice.
Submitted by:
Dated:6.4.2015
(Attorney Holder)
Jatinder Singh
Through
counsel:
Munish Mittal
Gagandeep Singh
Kirandeep Singh
Advocate, Patiala.
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PATIALA

(MS. DEEPIKA, PCS)
State of Punjab Vs. M/s Ashwani Fertilizer &

ors
In the matter of complaint

*********
No. 8 Sh. Diwan Singh Chouhan.
*************
Sir,

5. That today accused Diwan Singh has been gone out of station
for some personal work, as such he is unable to present
before this Hon’ble Court today.

but bonafide.

Submitted by:
Dated: 21.01.2016
Through counsel:
(Munish Mittal)
(Gagandeep Singh)
(Kirandeep Singh)
Advocates, Patiala.

(MS. DIPTI GOYAL)
Bhim Sain Vs Amarjit Singh

Accused Amarjit Singh
*************
Sir,

2. That the Kuldeep Singh son of Accused Amarjit Singh

informed that he is suffering from various ailments and unable to
walk, as such he is unable to present before this Hon’ble
Court today.
3. That the absence of the Accused is not willful or intentional

but bonafide.

accepted and the personal appearance of the Accused Amarjit
Singh may kindly be exempted for today, in the interest of
justice.
Submitted by:
Dated17.10.2015
(Son of
Accused)
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Rajbir Singh
Advocates, Patiala.

PATIALA.
(MS.KAMAL VARINDER,PCS)
Surinder Kumar Vs Mohan Lal Goyal & Ors
In the matter of Complaint U/s

406,419,420,465,467,468,471,120-B
IPC
*********

Surinder Kumar
*************
Sir,

2. That the Complainant Surinder Kumar has gone out of
Station for one week for some personal work, as such he is
unable to present before this Hon’ble Court today.
3. That the absence of complainant is not willful or

accepted and the personal appearance of the Complainant may
Submitted by:
Dated: 13.08.2015
Complainant
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Rajbir Singh
Advocates, Patiala

PATIALA.
(MS.DEEPTI GOYAL)
Bhim Sain Vs. Amarjit Singh

*********
Amarjit Singh
*************
Sir,

2. That the son of accused Amarjit Singh informed the counsel by
that he is suffering from fever as such he is as such he is unable
to present before this Hon’ble Court today.
3. That the accused has no objection if any evidence is recorded in
her evidence.
4. That the absence of the accused is not willful or intentional but
bonafide.
accepted and the personal appearance of the accused may kindly be
exempted for today, in the interest of justice.
Submitted by:
Dated: 6.08.2015
Kuldeep Singh
Son of Accused
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Kirandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala.

PATIALA.
(SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH, PCS)
Safdhar Javed Vs Malwinder

Kaur

U/s 279,304-A of I.P.C
*********
Malwinder Kaur W/O Kiraninder Singh
*************
Sir,

6. That today husband of the accused informed the counsel
through telephonic message that Malwinder Kaur has gone
out of station, as such she is unable to present before this
but bonafide.
her absence.

Submitted by:
Dated: 22.03.2016
….. Kiraninder Singh
Husband of
Malwinder Kaur
Through counsel:
Munish Mittal
Rajbir Singh
Advocates, Patiala

State Vs Soni Singh

U/s22/61/85 N D P S Act
P.S. Bakshiwala Patiala
*********
Soni Singh
*************
Sir,

5 That today accused Soni Singh informed the counsel through

telephonic message that he has gone out of station, as such
he is unable to present before this Hon’ble Court today.
but bonafide.

Submitted by:
Dated: 11.08.2015
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala

State Vs Soni Singh

*********
*************
Sir,


today.

Submitted by:
Dated: 04.06.2015
Complainent
Through counsel:
Munish Mittal
Kirandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala

PATIALA.
(MS.DEEPTI GOYAL)
Sucha Singh Vs. Pritpal Singh

*********
Application for personal exemption of SPA
Darshan Singh of Complainant
*************
Sir,

2 That the SPA Darshan Singh of Complainant informed the
counsel by telephonic message that he has gone out of
station due to some family reason, as such he is unable to


accepted and the personal appearance of SPA of complainant
may kindly be exempted for today, in the interest of justice.
Submitted by:
Dated: 15.10.2015
Complainant
Through counsel:
Munish Mittal
Gagandeep Singh
Kirandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala.

PATIALA.
(MS.DEEPTI GOYAL)
Darshan Singh Vs. Pritpal Singh

*********
Darshan Singh
*************
Sir,



but bonafide.

Submitted by:
Dated: 06.04.2015
(Son of
accused)
Through counsel:
unish Mittal
Gagandeep Singh
Kirandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala.
Rajinder Kalsi & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & ors.
In the matter of Appeal

*********
Application for personal exemption Appellant Parkash Kalsi
*************
Sir,
6. That the appellant Parkash Kalsi was got operated from
Knee ,as such she is unable to present before this Hon’ble
Court today, the certificate is already produced before the
Court on last date of hearing.
7. That the absence of the appellant Parkash Kalsi is not willful
or intentional but bonafide.
accepted and the personal appearance of the appellant Parkash
Kalsi may kindly be exempted, in the interest of justice.
Submitted by:
Dated:9.7.2015
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala.

************
*************
Sir,
fixed for today.
court.
Submitted by:
Dated:6.4.2015
(Attorney Holder)
Jatinder Singh
Through
counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Advocate, Patiala.
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE 1ST CLASS,PATIALA
(MS. DEEPIKA, PCS)

ors

*********
no 7 and 8 .
*************
Sir,

8. That today accused Diwan Singh has been gone out of station
for some personal work to Hon,ble High Court, as such he
is unable to present before this Hon’ble Court today.

but bonafide.

Submitted by:
Dated: 20.07.2015
Through counsel:
(Gagandeep Singh)
Advocates, Patiala.
(MS. DIPTI GOYAL)

*************
Sir,

5. That the Accused Amarjit Singh has gone out of station for
some personal work, as such he is unable to present before

but bonafide.

justice.
Submitted by:
Dated:19.08.2015
(Accused)
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Rajbir Singh
Advocates, Patiala.

PATIALA.

406,419,420,465,467,468,471,120-B
IPC
*********
Surinder Kumar
*************
Sir,

Submitted by:
Dated: 13.08.2015
Complainant
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala

PATIALA.
(MS.DEEPTI GOYAL)

*********
Amarjit Singh
*************
Sir,
6. That the son of accused Amarjit Singh informed the counsel by
that he is suffering from fever as such he is as such he is unable
to present before this Hon’ble Court today.
7. That the accused has no objection if any evidence is recorded in
her evidence.
8. That the absence of the accused is not willful or intentional but
bonafide.
Submitted by:
Dated: 6.08.2015
Kuldeep Singh
Son of Accused
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Kirandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala.

(MS. DIPTI GOYAL)

*************
Sir,


Court today.

but bonafide.

justice.
Submitted by:
Dated:12.10.2015
(Son of
Accused)
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Rajbir Singh
Advocates, Patiala.
(MS. DIPTI GOYAL)
*************
AFFIDAVIT
*******
I, Kuldeep Singh son of Amarjit Singh resident of H.No.
13/A, New Century Enclave, Ablowal, Patiala do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
I state on oath that the present application for
exemption from personal appearance of My father Amarjit
Singh has been filed along-with this affidavit. My father is

suffering from various ailments and is unable to walk, as
such he cannot come to before this Hon’ble Court.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified that the contents of this affidavit are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Verified at Patiala
Dated:12.10.2015
DEPONENT

PATIALA.
(MS.DEEPTI GOYAL)
Narinderjit Singh Vs. Iqbal Singh

*********
Application for personal exemption of Jatinder
Singh Attorney Holder of Complainant.
*************
Sir,

2 That the Attorney of complainant Jatinder Singh informed
the counsel that he has gone out of station due to some
family reason, as such he is unable to present before this


Submitted by:
Dated: 30.10.2015
Complainant
Through counsel:
Munish Mittal
Advocates, Patiala.

PATIALA.
(MS.KAMAL VARINDER)
Surinder Kumar Vs. Mohan Lal &

Others
In the matter of Complaint U/s 406/419/420 of

IPC
*********
Complainant Surinder Kumar.
*************
Sir,

2 That the complainant Surinder Kumar informed the counsel

Submitted by:
Dated: 30.10.2015
Complainant
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Advocate, Patiala.
PATIALA.
(SH.JAGMEET SINGH, PCS)
Baljit Kaur Vs Pargat Singh

*********
Jaswinder Singh.
*************
Sir,

Court today.
but bonafide.
absence.

Submitted by:
Dated: 13.11.2015
….. Accused
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Kirandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala

PATIALA.
(SH.SUKHWINDER SINGH,PCS)
Safder Jawad Vs Malvinder Kaur
U/s 279,304-A IPC

P.S. Civil Lines Patiala
*********
Malvinder Kaur
*************
Sir,
a. That the above noted case is pending in this Hon’ble Court

b. That the accused Malvinder kaur been gone out of station for
c. That the absence accused is not willful or intentional but
bonafide.
accepted and the personal appearance of the accused Malvinder
Kaur may kindly be exempted for today, in the interest of justice.
Submitted by:
Dated: 19.1.2016
Accused
Through counsel:
Kirandeep Singh
Advocate, Patiala
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE , PATIALA.

(MS POONAM BANSAL, PCS)
Kiddy’s Camp Versus H.S Hoon & Anr.

In the matter of complaint.
********
the accused KIRPAL SINGH SANDHU.
***********
Sir,
accused Kirpal Singh Sandhu that he has to go out of station for

It is, therefore, prayed that the application may

kindly be accepted and the personal appearance of
accused Kirpal Singh Sandhu may kindly be exempted
for today.
Submitted by:
Dated 10.1.2018
Kirpal Singh Sandhu
accused
Through Counsel:

Advocate, Patiala

(MS. SHAGUN PCS)
F.I.R 139 dated 20.12.2013

U/s 406/498-A IPC
***********
the accused Amarjit Kaur
***********
Sir,

10. That accused Amarjit Kaur is suffering from viral fever,
as such, she is unable to appear before this Honble Court for
today.
11. That absence of the accused is neither intentional nor


Submitted by:
Dated :1.11.2017
Co-accused
Through Counsel:

Saravjit Singh Saini
Advocates
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, NDPS PATIALA

(SH. MOHD. GULZAR)
State Vs Mandeep Singh & Anr
F.I.R No. 104 dated 11.06.2015

PS Samana Sadar.
*********
Application for personal exemption of Accused Soni
*************
Sir,
2. That the Counsel of accused received telephonic message

that accused has gone out of station for attend the marriage
of his close relative, as such he is unable to attend this
court.

bonafide.

accepted and the personal appearance of the accused Soni may
Submitted by:
Dated: 08.05.2017
…….. Accused
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Advocate, Patiala
(SH. Gurkiran Singh, PCS)
Amanpreet Kaur Versus State
In The Matter Of application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C

********
the complainant/applicant Amanpreet Kaur.
***********
Sir,
fixed for today.
2. That the counsel for the complainant/applicant has been

informed by complainant/applicant through telephonic message
that she has to go out of station for her personal or domestic
work, as such she is unable to appear before this Hon’ble Court
for today.
3. That the absence of the complainant/applicant is neither


complainant/applicant Amanpreet Kaur may kindly be
exempted for today.
Submitted by:
Dated:- 29.07.2022
….. complainant/applicant
Through Counsel:

SANTOSH KUMAR
Advocates, Patiala

(MS. RAMANDEEP NEETU, PCS)
State Vs. Rajan Kumar
F.I.R 99 dated 18.09.2015

U/s 406/498-A IPC
P.S. Women Cell, Patiala.
**************
complainant Asha.
***********
Sir,

Submitted by:
Dated 24.03.2017
……Complainant
Through Counsel:

Advocate, Patiala
Versus Ravinder Singh

Instruments Act.

***********
Sir,


from accused that he has gone out of station for his personal work,
as such he is unable to appear before this Hon’ble Court today.


her absence.

Submitted by:
Dated 17.3.2017
Ravinder Singh
accused
Through Counsel:

Advocate, Patiala
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,
PATIALA. (DR. GAGANDEEP KAUR, PCS)
State Versus Amrit Singh & Ors
F.I.R 144 dated 08.09.2016

U/s 377/506/34 IPC
P.S Samana Sadar, Distt. Patiala
***********
the witness/victim Hardeep Singh
***********
Sir,
4 That the above mentioned case is pending in this Hon’ble

5 That witness/victim Hardeep Singh is student of 10+2 non

medical class and his final examination is going on and his
last paper on 12.04.2017, as such, he is unable to appear
before this Hon’ble Court for today.
6 That the absence of the witness/victim is neither


be accepted and the personal appearance of witness/victim
Hardeep Singh may kindly be exempted for today ad case
may be adjourned after 12.04.2017, I the interest of justice.
Submitted by:
Complainant/Witness
Through Counsel:

Advocate, Patiala
(SH. AMANDEEP, PCS)
State Versus Amrik Singh & Ors
F.I.R 15 dated 29.01.2010

U/s 447/427/511/506/148/149 IPC
P.S Kotwali, Patiala
***********
the accused Ranjit Singh
***********
Sir,
13. That accused Ranjit Singh has gone out of station for
urgent work, as such, he is unable to appear before this
Honble Court for today.

15. That accused has no objection if any evidence recorded

in his absence.

be accepted and the personal appearance of accused Ranjit
Submitted by:
Dated :28.04.2017
Co-accused
Through Counsel:

Santosh Kumar
Advocates, Patiala
PATIALA.

Instruments Act.

the accused Harmeet Kaur.
***********
Sir,

2. That the counsel for the accused has been informed by Inderpal
Singh Father-in-law of accused Harmeet Kaur that daughter of
accused Kiratnoor Kaur is suffering from Nephrelogical disease
and accused Harmeet Kaur look after her daughter, as such she
is unable to appear before this Hon’ble Court for today.


absence.

accepted and the personal appearance of accused Harmeet
Submitted by
Dated: 16.01.2018
Inderpal Singh
Father in law of accused
Through Counsel:

Santosh Kumar
Advocates, Patiala
SBOP Versus Guru Kirpa

Instruments Act.

the accused Bikramjit Singh.
***********
Sir,

2. That the counsel for the accused has been informed by Inderpal
Singh (Father-in-law) of accused Bikramjit Singh has gone out
of station for urgent work, as such accused is unable to appear
before this Hon’ble Court for today.

4. The accused has no objection if any evidence recorded in his

absence.

accepted and the personal appearance of accused may kindly
be exempted for today.
Submitted by
Dated: 16.01.2018
Inderpal Singh
Father of accused
Through Counsel:

Santosh Kumar
Advocates, Patiala
Baljit Kaur Versus Pargat Singh
In the matter of criminal complaint.

the accused Jatinder Pal Kaur.
***********
Sir,

5. That the counsel for the accused has been informed by co-
accused that Jatinder Pal Kaur has gone out of station due to
official work, as such, she is unable to appear before this


be accepted and the personal appearance of accused may kindly be
exempted for today.
Submitted by:
Dated : 6.1.2016
co-accused
Through Counsel:

Advocate, Patiala
PATIALA.
(SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PCS)

*********
*************
Sir,
14. That the accused is admitted in CMC, Hospital Ludhiana for

his Bye-Pass surgery, as such he is unable to present before

but bonafide.

absence.

Submitted by:
Dated: 05.05.2016
….. Accused
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Santosh Kumar
Advocates, Patiala

PATIALA.
M/s Fashion Shoppy Vs K.S. Sandhu

*********
*************
Sir,
18. That the accused K.S.Sandhu has been admitted in C.M.C
Ludhiana for his Bye-Pass surgery, as such he is unable to
but bonafide.
absence.

Submitted by:
Dated: 29.04.2016
….. Accused
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Santosh Kumar
Advocates, Patiala

Surinder Kumar Vs. Mohan Lal & Ors
In the matter of complaint U/s

406/419/420/465/467/468/471/120-B of IPC
*********

Complainant Surinder Kumar
*************
Sir,
11. That today Complainant Surinder Kumar has been gone

out of station for some personal work, as such he is unable to
12. That the absence of the Complainant is not willful or


accepted and the personal appearance of the Complainant
Surinder Kumar may kindly be exempted for today, in the
Submitted by:
Dated: 28.04.2016
…..
Complainant/Applicant
Through counsel:
(Gagandeep Singh)
Advocates, Patiala.
State Vs Nirmal Singh
F.I.R No. 114 dated 30.6.2015

PS Samana Sadar.
*********
Nirmal Singh
*************
Sir,

5. That the Counsel of accused received telephonis message
as he is unable to attend this court.
bonafide.
Submitted by:
Dated: 29.2.2016
…….. Accused
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Advocate, Patiala

PATIALA.
(MS. DIPTI GOYAL, PCS)

*********
*************
Sir,
Court today.
but bonafide.
absence.

Submitted by:
Dated: 17.10.2015
….. Accused
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Kirandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala

State Vs Soni

U/s22/61/85 N D P S Act
P.S. Bakhshi Wala Patiala.
*********
Soni Singh
*************
Sir,

8 That today accused Nirmal Singh informed the counsel
through telephonic message that he has gone out of station,
as such he is unable to present before this Hon’ble Court
today.

but bonafide.

Submitted by:
Dated: 18.09.2015
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Rajbir Singh
Advocates, Patiala
State Vs Soni Singh

*********
*************
Sir,


today.


Submitted by:
Dated: 04.06.2015
Complainent
Through counsel:
Munish Mittal
Kirandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala

PATIALA.
(MS.DEEPTI GOYAL)
Rajinder Singh Vs. Anup Singh

Contractor

*********
Complainant Rajinder Singh.
*************
Sir,

5 That the complainant Rajinder Singh informed the counsel


Submitted by:
Dated: 23.10.2015
Complainant
Through counsel:

Advocate, Patiala.

PATIALA.
(MS.DEEPTI GOYAL)
Amrinder Singh Vs. Manisha Rani

*********
Application for personal exemption of accused
Manisha Rani.
*************
Sir,
10 That the husband of accused Manisha Rani informed the
counsel that she has gone out of station due to some family
reason, as such she is unable to present before this Hon’ble
Court today.
11 That the accused Manisha Rani has no objection if any

evidence is recorded in her evidence.
but bonafide.

Submitted by:
Dated: 1.10.2015
Accused
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Rajbir Singh
Advocates, Patiala.

PATIALA.
(MS.DEEPTI GOYAL)
Gurpal Singh Vs. Madan

Chauhan

*********
Gurpal Singh
*************
Sir,



but bonafide.

Submitted by:
Dated: 06.04.2015
(Son of
accused)
Through counsel:
unish Mittal
Gagandeep Singh
Kirandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala.

*********
*************
Sir,



Submitted by:
Dated:9.7.2015
Through counsel:
Rakesh Gupta
Gagandeep Singh
Kirandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala.


************
*************
Sir,
fixed for today.
court.
Submitted by:
Dated:6.4.2015
(Attorney Holder)
Jatinder Singh
Through
counsel:
Munish Mittal
Gagandeep Singh
Kirandeep Singh
Advocate, Patiala.

(MS. DEEPIKA, PCS)
ors

*********
No. 8 Sh. Diwan Singh Chouhan.
*************
Sir,
14. That today accused Diwan Singh has been gone out of
station for some personal work, as such he is unable to

but bonafide.

Submitted by:
Dated: 21.01.2016
Through counsel:
(Munish Mittal)
(Gagandeep Singh)
(Kirandeep Singh)
Advocates, Patiala.
(MS. DIPTI GOYAL)

*************
Sir,


Court today.

but bonafide.

justice.
Submitted by:
Dated17.10.2015
(Son of
Accused)
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Rajbir Singh
Advocates, Patiala.
PATIALA.

406,419,420,465,467,468,471,120-B
IPC
*********

Surinder Kumar
*************
Sir,


Submitted by:
Dated: 13.08.2015
Complainant
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Rajbir Singh
Advocates, Patiala

PATIALA.
(MS.DEEPTI GOYAL)

*********
Amarjit Singh
*************
Sir,

10. That the son of accused Amarjit Singh informed the
counsel by that he is suffering from fever as such he is as such
11. That the accused has no objection if any evidence is
recorded in her evidence.
but bonafide.
Submitted by:
Dated: 6.08.2015
Kuldeep Singh
Son of Accused
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Kirandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala.

PATIALA.
(SH. SUKHWINDER SINGH, PCS)
Safdhar Javed Vs Malwinder

Kaur

U/s 279,304-A of I.P.C
*********
Malwinder Kaur W/O Kiraninder Singh
*************
Sir,

10. That today husband of the accused informed the counsel
through telephonic message that Malwinder Kaur has gone
out of station, as such she is unable to present before this
but bonafide.
her absence.

Submitted by:
Dated: 22.03.2016
….. Kiraninder Singh
Husband of
Malwinder Kaur
Through counsel:
Munish Mittal
Rajbir Singh
Advocates, Patiala

State Vs Soni Singh

U/s22/61/85 N D P S Act
P.S. Bakshiwala Patiala
*********
Soni Singh
*************
Sir,

11 That today accused Soni Singh informed the counsel through

telephonic message that he has gone out of station, as such

but bonafide.
Submitted by:
Dated: 11.08.2015
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala

State Vs Soni Singh

*********
*************
Sir,


today.

Submitted by:
Dated: 04.06.2015
Complainent
Through counsel:
Munish Mittal
Kirandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala

PATIALA.
()
Sucha Singh Vs. Pritpal Singh

*********
Application for personal exemption of SPA
Darshan Singh of Complainant
*************
Sir,

5 That the SPA Darshan Singh of Complainant informed the
counsel by telephonic message that he has gone out of
station due to some family reason, as such he is unable to

accepted and the personal appearance of SPA of complainant
may kindly be exempted for today, in the interest of justice.
Submitted by:
Dated: 15.10.2015
Complainant
Through counsel:
Munish Mittal
Gagandeep Singh
Kirandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala.

PATIALA.
(MS.DEEPTI GOYAL)
Darshan Singh Vs. Pritpal Singh

*********
Darshan Singh
*************
Sir,



but bonafide.

Submitted by:
Dated: 06.04.2015
(Son of
accused)
Through counsel:
unish Mittal
Gagandeep Singh
Kirandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala.

*********
*************
Sir,

Submitted by:
Dated:9.7.2015
Through counsel:
Rakesh Gupta
Gagandeep Singh
Kirandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala.


************
*************
Sir,
fixed for today.
court.
Submitted by:
Dated:6.4.2015
(Attorney Holder)
Jatinder Singh
Through
counsel:
Munish Mittal
Gagandeep Singh
Kirandeep Singh
Advocate, Patiala.
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 1ST

CLASS,PATIALA
(MS. DEEPIKA, PCS)

ors

*********
no 7 and 8 .
*************
Sir,
17. That today accused Diwan Singh has been gone out of
station for some personal work to Hon,ble High Court, as

but bonafide.

Submitted by:
Dated: 20.07.2015
Through counsel:
(Munish Mittal)
(Gagandeep Singh)
Advocates, Patiala.

(MS. DIPTI GOYAL)

*************
Sir,
11. That the Accused Amarjit Singh has gone out of station for

but bonafide.

justice.
Submitted by:
Dated:19.08.2015
(Accused)
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Rajbir Singh
Advocates, Patiala.

PATIALA.

406,419,420,465,467,468,471,120-B
IPC
*********
Surinder Kumar
*************
Sir,


Submitted by:
Dated: 13.08.2015
Complainant
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Rajbir Singh
Advocates, Patiala

PATIALA.
(MS.DEEPTI GOYAL)

*********
Amarjit Singh
*************
Sir,
14. That the son of accused Amarjit Singh informed the
counsel by that he is suffering from fever as such he is as such
15. That the accused has no objection if any evidence is
recorded in her evidence.
but bonafide.
Submitted by:
Dated: 6.08.2015
Kuldeep Singh
Son of Accused
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Kirandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala.

(MS. DIPTI GOYAL)

*************
Sir,


Court today.

but bonafide.

justice.
Submitted by:
Dated:12.10.2015
(Son of
Accused)
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Rajbir Singh
Advocates, Patiala.

(MS. DIPTI GOYAL)
*************
AFFIDAVIT
*******
I, Kuldeep Singh son of Amarjit Singh resident of H.No.
13/A, New Century Enclave, Ablowal, Patiala do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
I state on oath that the present application for
exemption from personal appearance of My father Amarjit
Singh has been filed along-with this affidavit. My father is
suffering from various ailments and is unable to walk, as
such he cannot come to before this Hon’ble Court.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified that the contents of this affidavit are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Verified at Patiala
Dated:12.10.2015
DEPONENT
PATIALA.
(MS.DEEPTI GOYAL)
Narinderjit Singh Vs. Iqbal Singh

*********
Application for personal exemption of Jatinder
Singh Attorney Holder of Complainant.
*************
Sir,

5 That the Attorney of complainant Jatinder Singh informed
the counsel that he has gone out of station due to some
family reason, as such he is unable to present before this


Submitted by:
Dated: 30.10.2015
Complainant
Through counsel:
Munish Mittal
Advocates, Patiala.
PATIALA.
(MS.KAMAL VARINDER)
Surinder Kumar Vs. Mohan Lal &

Others
In the matter of Complaint U/s 406/419/420 of

IPC
*********
Complainant Surinder Kumar.
*************
Sir,

5 That the complainant Surinder Kumar informed the counsel


Submitted by:
Dated: 30.10.2015
Complainant
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Advocate, Patiala.
PATIALA.
(SH.JAGMEET SINGH, PCS)
Baljit Kaur Vs Pargat Singh

*********
Jaswinder Singh.
*************
Sir,

Court today.
but bonafide.
absence.

Submitted by:
Dated: 13.11.2015
….. Accused
Through counsel:
Gagandeep Singh
Kirandeep Singh
Advocates, Patiala

PATIALA.
(SH.SUKHWINDER SINGH,PCS)
Safder Jawad Vs Malvinder Kaur
U/s 279,304-A IPC

P.S. Civil Lines Patiala
*********
Malvinder Kaur
*************
Sir,
d. That the above noted case is pending in this Hon’ble Court

e. That the accused Malvinder kaur been gone out of station for
f. That the absence accused is not willful or intentional but
bonafide.
accepted and the personal appearance of the accused Malvinder
Kaur may kindly be exempted for today, in the interest of justice.
Submitted by:
Dated: 19.1.2016
Accused
Through counsel:
Munish Mittal
Kirandeep Singh
Advocate, Patiala

Versus Ravinder Singh

Instruments Act.

***********
Sir,


from accused that he has gone out of station for his personal work,


her absence.

Submitted by:
Dated 17.3.2017
Ravinder Singh
accused
Through Counsel:

Advocate, Patiala
PATIALA.
(MS. NEHA GOEL, PCS)
Sahib Singh Versus Barinder Kaur

of the complainant Sahib Singh.
***********
Sir,

2. That the Counsel of complainant received telephonic message

from complainant that he has gone out of station for his
3. That the absence of the complainant is neither intentional


be accepted and the personal appearance of complainant may
kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by:
Dated 18.12.2017
Complainant
Through Counsel:

Advocate, Patiala
PATIALA.
Paramjit Kaur Versus Jug Singh
In the matter of Criminal Complaint.

**********
of the complainant Paramjit Kaur.
***********
Sir,

complainant Paramjit Kaur has gone out of station for her 0
personal work, as such she is unable to appear before this

4. That complainant has no objection if any evidence recorded

in her absence.
Paramjit Kaur may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by
Dated: 09.08.2019
…. Complainant
Through counsel

Santosh Kumar,
Advocates, Patiala
(MS. JUBLEE PCS)
F.I.R 139 dated 20.12.2013

/s 406/498-A IPC
***********
the accused Amarjit Kaur.
***********
Sir,


suffering from viral fever, as such, she is unable to appear
before this Honble Court for today.

4. That accused has no objection if any evidence recorded in their

absence.

Kaur and co-accused Baljit Kaur may kindly be exempted for
today.
Submitted by:
Dated:- 20.12.2019
Co-accused
Through Counsel:

PRINCE JINDAL
Advocates ,Patiala
(SH.S.K SACHDEVA)
State Vs Jagdev Singh @

Ors.
FIR No.181 dated 21.7.2019

U&/s 302/34 IPC
P.S Civil Lines.
*********
Application for personal exemption of Witnesses
Paramjit Kaur and Charanjit Dass.
*************
Sir,

2. That the complainant Charanjit Dass has informed the
counsel by telephonic message that due to death of close
relative he has to go attend last rites alongwith his sister
Paramjit Kaur out of station, as such they are unable to
3. That the absence of the witnesses is not willful or intentional.

Submitted by:
Dated:- 20.12.2019
Complainant
Through Counsel:

PRINCE JINDAL
Advocates ,Patiala
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE , PATIALA
(MS. DEEPTI GUPTA, PCS)
Gurdeep Kaur Versus Sanambir Singh & ors
In the matter of criminal complaint .

**********
of the accused Bhupinder Singh Sandhu.
***********
Sir,

accused Bhupinder Singh Sandhu has gone out of station for

4. That accused has no objection if any evidence recorded in

his absence.

Bhupinder Singh Sandhu may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by
Dated:
…. Accused
Through counsel

Advocate, Patiala
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, PATIALA
Harish Chander Versus Neelam Rani
In The Matter Of Petition U/s 13 HMA.

***********
appearance of the respondent Neelam Rani.
***********
Sir,

2. That undersigned counsel of respondent has informed
through telephonic message that she has go out of station for
her personal work and domestic work, as such, she is unable
to appear before this Honble Court for today.
3. That absence of the respondent is neither intentional nor
4. That the respondent has no objection if any evidence is
recorded in his absence .

be accepted and the personal appearance of respondent
Neelam Rani kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by:
Dated:- 17.01.2020
…….Rspondent
Through Counsel:

Santosh Kumar
Advocates, Patiala
Neelam Rani Versus Harish Chander
In The Matter Of application U/s 24 HMA.

***********
appearance of the applicant Neelam Rani.
***********
Sir,

2. That undersigned counsel of applicant has informed through
telephonic message that she has go out of station for his
personal work and domestic work, as such, she is unable to
appear before this Honble Court for today.
3. That absence of the applicant is neither intentional nor

be accepted and the personal appearance of applicant Neelam
Rani kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by:
Dated:- 17.01.2020
…….Applicant
Through Counsel:

Santosh Kumar
Advocates, Patiala
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT
PATIALA

F.I.R 139 dated 20.12.2013
U/s 406/498-A IPC
***********
the accused Amarjit Kaur and co-accused Baljit
Kaur.
***********
Sir,
17. That co-accused has informed that accused Amarjit

Kaur and co-accused Baljit Kaur are suffering from viral
fever, as such, they are unable to appear before this Honble
Court for today.


their absence.

Kaur and co-accused Baljit Kaur may kindly be exempted for
today.
Submitted by:
Dated :30.03.2019
Co-accused
Through Counsel:

Harjot Singh Waraichc
Prince Jindal
Advocates,Patiala
(MS. JUBLEE, PCS)
F.I.R 139 dated 20.12.2013

U/s 406/498-A IPC
***********
the accused Amarjit Kaur and co-accused Baljit
Kaur.
***********
Sir,


old aged lady ande suffering from viral fever, as such, she is
unable to appear before this Honble Court for today.


absence.

Submitted by:
Dated :22.01.2020
Co-accused
Through Counsel:

Prince Jindal
Advocates,Patiala
(MS. JUBLEE, PCS)
State Versus Sandeep Bawa & Ors
F.I.R 103/2012
U/s 406420,417,447,511,467,468,471120-B IPC
P.S SADAR, Patiala
***********
appearance of the accused KARNAIL SINGH.
***********
Sir,

2. That accused has informed the understand that accused has

to go PGI Chandigarh alongwith his wife for her treatment, as
such he is unable to appear before this Honble Court for
today.


absence.

KARNAIL SINGH may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by:
Dated:- 19.10.2021
………..Accused
Through Counsel:

Advocates,Patiala
-
(MS. NIDHI SAINI PCS)
State Versus VISHU GARG & Ors
F.I.R 07/2015
U/s 452,506, 120-B, IPC
P.S KOTWALI, Patiala
***********
appearance of the accused AMANPREET
KAUR
***********
Sir,

2. That accused has informed the undersigned that he has to

go Hon’ble High Court Punjab & Haryana for personal
hearing in case fixed for today. As such she is unable to
appear before this Hon’ble Court for today.


absence.

AMANPREET KAUR may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by:
Dated:- 27.01.2020
….Accused
Through Counsel:

MALKIT SINGH DHILLON
Advocates, Patiala
(Ms. Indu Bala, PCS)
Rahul Arora Versus Varun Ahuja

Instruments Act.

the Complainant Rahul Arora.
***********
Sir,

2. That the Counsel of complainant received telephonic message from

complainant that he has gone out of station for his personal work,
3. That the absence of the complainant is neither intentional nor


accepted and the personal appearance of complainant Rahul Arora
Submitted by:
Dated 27.02.2020
Rahul Arora
complainant
Through Counsel:

Prince jindal
Malkit Singh Dhillon
Advocate, Patiala
(MS. JUBLEE, PCS)
F.I.R 139 dated 20.12.2013

U/s 406/498-A IPC
***********
the accused AMARJIT KAUR .
***********
Sir,

2. That co-accused has informed that accused Amarjit Kaur

suffering from ankle fracture and she is unable to walk
properly, as such she is unable to appear before this Hon’ble
Court for today.


absence and will not dispute the identity of accused AMARJIT
KAUR.

AMARJIT KAUR may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by:
Dated :11.02.2020
Co-accused
Through Counsel:

Advocates, Patiala
PATIALA.
Raman Kumar Versus Gurmukh Singh
In the matter of Complaint.

**********
of the complainant RAMAN KUMAR.
***********
Sir,

complainant Raman Kumar has gone out of station for his


Raman Kumar may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by
Dated: 11.02.2020
…. Complainant
Through counsel

Santosh Kumar,
Advocates, Patiala
In The Matter Of Petition U/s 13 HMA.

***********
appearance of the respondent Neelam Rani.
***********
Sir,

2. That undersigned counsel has informed through telephonic
message by respondent that she has go for last rites of her
close relative, as such, she is unable to appear before this
3. That absence of the respondent is neither intentional nor
4. That the respondent has no objection if any evidence is
recorded in his absence .

Neelam Rani kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by:
Dated:- 17.02.2020
…….Rspondent
Through Counsel:

Santosh Kumar
Advocates, Patiala
Neelam Rani Versus Harish Chander
In The Matter Of application U/s 24 of HMA.

***********
appearance of the Neelam Rani.
***********
Sir,

2. That undersigned counsel has informed through telephonic
message by applicant/petitioner that she has go for last rites
of her close relative , as such, she is unable to appear before
this Hon’ble Court for today.
3. That absence of the applicant is neither intentional nor

be accepted and the personal appearance of applicant Neelam
Rani kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by:
Dated:- 17.02.2020
…….Applicant
Through Counsel:

Santosh Kumar
Advocates, Patiala
(SH. G.S JOHAL, PCS)
In the matter Of application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C

********
the complainant/applicant AMANPREET KAUR.
***********
Sir,
fixed for today.
2. That the complainant/applicant informed undersigned counsel

through telephonic message that she has to attend hearing of
her case at District Court Chandigarh for cross examination of
witness, as such she is unable to appear before this Hon’ble
Court for today. Screen Shot Copy of Case hearing detail is
attached herewith.


exempted for today.
Submitted by:
Dated:-19.02.2020
….. complainant/applicant
Through Counsel:

SANTOSH KUMAR
PRINCE JINDAL
Advocates, Patiala
(MS. JUBLEE, PCS)
F.I.R 139 dated 20.12.2013

U/s 406/498-A IPC
***********
the accused Amarjit Kaur.
***********
Sir,

2. That co-accused has informed that accused Amarjit Kaur

have swelling in her feet, as such, she is unable to appear


absence and will not dispute the identity of accused amarjit
kaur.

Submitted by:
Dated :25.02.2020
Co-accused
Through Counsel:

Prince Jindal
Advocates,Patiala
(SH. RANDEEP KUMAR, PCS)
Asha Kamal Versus Rajiv Kamal
In the matter of Criminal complaint U/s 406,498-A of IPC.

the Complainant Asha Kamal.
***********
Sir,

2. That the Counsel of complainant received telephonic message from

complainant that he has gone out of station for his personal work,
3. That the absence of the complainant is neither intentional nor


accepted and the personal appearance of complainant may kindly be
exempted for today.
Submitted by:
Dated
complainant
Through Counsel:

Prince jindal
Advocates, Patiala
PATIALA.
Lakhvir Singh Versus Mohan Lal

**********
of the complainant Lakhvir Singh.
***********
Sir,

complainant has gone out of station for his personal work, as


Lakhvir Singh may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by
Dated:28.02.2020
…. Complainant
Through counsel

Santosh Kumar,
Prince Jindal,
Advocates, Patiala
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDEG, PATIALA
(MS. MANJOT KAUR)
Rajwant Singh Vs Manjit Kaur
In the matter of Cr. appeal

******
Application for personal exemption of appellant

Rajwant Singh.
******
Sir,
It is submitted as under:-
1. That the above noted is pending before this Hon’ble Court and fixed
for today.
2. That undersigned counsel has a telephonic message that appellant

Rajwant Singh has go out of station for his domestic work, as such
he is unable to appear before this court for today.
3. That the absence of appellant is not intentional or willful.
It is therefore, prayed that application may be accepted and

personal appearance of appellant may exempted for today only, in
the interest of justice.
Submitted by:
Dated:-12.03.2020
…….. Appellant
Through counsel

SANTOSH KUMAR,
PRINCE JINDAL,
Advocates, Patiala
(SH.G.S.JOHAL , PCS)
State Vs. Gurvinder singh And Ors
F.I.R 16 dated 25.02..2015

U/s 458,354,506,294,201,34 IPC
P.S. Bakshiwal, Patiala.
**************
complainant Asha.
***********
Sir,


Submitted by:
Dated 24.03.2017
……Complainant
Through Counsel:

Advocate, Patiala
IN THE COURT OF COMMISIONER PATIALA DIVISION,
PATIALA.
Jagraj Singh Versus Shinder Kaur
In the matter of revision petition.
Application for adjournment of the case.

***********
Sir,

2. That the counsel for the applicant has gone out of station
due to official work, as such, he is unable to appear before
3. That the absence of the counsel is neither intentional nor


be accepted and the personal appearance of counsel may kindly be
exempted for today and the revision petition may kindly be
adjourn for any other date.
Submitted by:
Dated : 02.09.2020
Proxy Counsel:
M.S. Dhillon
Advocate, Patiala
(MS. JUBLEE, PCS)
F.I.R 103/2012
U/s 406, 420, 417, 447, 511, 467, 468, 471,
120-B IPC
P.S SADAR, Patiala
***********
***********
Sir,


today.


absence.
Submitted by:
Dated:- 14.01.2021
………..Accused
Through Counsel:

Advocate ,Patiala
IN THE COURT OF MS SUDIPA KAUR, PCS,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 1ST CLASS, PATIALA
State VERSUS Kanwar Singh & Anr
FIR No.187 dt 21.08.2018

U/s 406/420/120-B IPC
P.S TRIPURI
**********
of the Accused Jaswinder Singh.
***********
Sir,
2. That the undersigned counsel received a telephonic message

that accused Jaswinder Singh has gone out of station for his
3. That the absence of the accused Jaswinder Singh is neither


Jaswinder Singh may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by
Dated: 15.01.2021
…. accused
Through counsel

Advocates, Patiala
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, NDPS PATIALA
State Vs Raju Yadav
F.I.R No. 30/2020

PS. RAJPURA CITY.
*********

RAJU YADAV.
*************
Sir,
fixed for today
2. That the Counsel of accused received telephonic message that

accused is not well suffering from viral fever, as he is unable to
attend this court.

bonafide.
4. That accused has no objection if any evidence is recorded in his

absence.
Submitted by:
Dated: 21.01.2021
……. Accused
Through counsel:-

Advocate, Patiala
PATIALA.
Paramjit Kaur Versus Jagwinder Singh ors
In the matter of Criminal Complaint.

**********
of the complainant Paramjit Kaur.
***********
Sir,


complainant Paramjit Kaur has gone out of station for her
personal work, as such she is unable to appear before this


Paramjit Kaur may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by
Dated: 21.01.2021
…. Complainant
Through counsel

Advocates, Patiala
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
PATIALA
Harish Chander VS Neelam Rani
In the matter of petition under section 13 of Hindu

Marriage Act
**********
of the respondent Neelam Rani.
***********
Sir,
2. That the counsel of respondent got a telephonic message that

respondent has gone out of station for her personal domestic
work, as such she is unable to appear before this Hon’ble
Court today.
3. That the absence of respondent is neither intentional nor


Neelam Rani may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by
Dated: 22.01.2021
…. Respondent
Through counsel

Advocate, Patiala
PATIALA.
M/S SK Plastic Versus M/S Sitla Maa

**********
of the complainant OM PARKASH.
***********
Sir,
2. That the counsel of complainant received a telephonic message

that complainant Om Parkash has gone out of station for his


Om Parkash may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by
Dated: 31.05.22
…. Complainant
Through counsel

SANTOSH KUMAR,
Advocates, Patiala
PATIALA.
Lakhvir Singh Versus Mohan Lal

**********
of the complainant Lakhvir Singh.
***********
Sir,
2. That the counsel of complainant got a telephonic message from

complainant that last week his father was expired and today is
his Bhog ceremony, as such he is unable to appear before this


Lakhvir Singh may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by
Dated: 08.02.2021
…. Complainant
Through counsel

Advocate, Patiala
(MS. JUBLEE, PCS)
F.I.R 139 dated 20.12.2013

U/s 406/498-A IPC
***********
the accused Amarjit Kaur, Baljit Kaur & Rajinder
Kaur.
***********
Sir,

2. That accused has informed the undersigned that due to

marriage of daughter of Rajinder Kaur held 07.02.2021 all
accused are unable to appear before this Hon’ble Court for
today.

4. That accused have no objection if any evidence recorded in

their absence and they will not dispute their identity.

Kaur, Baljit Kaur & Rajinder Kaur may kindly be exempted
for today.
Submitted by:
Dated :08.02.2021
Accused
Through Counsel:

Advocates, Patiala

(MS. NIDHI SAINI PCS)
State Versus VISHU GARG & Ors
F.I.R 07/2015
U/s 452,506, 120-B, IPC
P.S KOTWALI, Patiala
***********
appearance of the accused AMANPREET
KAUR
***********
Sir,

2. That accused has informed the undersigned that she has to
go Hon’ble High Court Punjab & Haryana for her personal
case, as such she is unable to appear before this Hon’ble
Court for today.
her absence .

AMANPREET KAUR may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by:
Dated:- 11.02.2021
….Accused
Through Counsel:

Advocates, Patiala

(MS. JUBLEE, PCS)

F.I.R 103/2012
U/s 406420,417,447,511,467,468,471120-B IPC
P.S SADAR, Patiala
***********
***********
Sir,


today.


absence.

Submitted by:
Dated:- 17.02.2021
………..Accused
Through Counsel:

Advocate, Patiala
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), PATIALA

(MS. AMANDEEP KAUR)
State VS Rahul
FIR NO. 22 dated 02.06.2018

U/S 20/61/85 NDPS
PS GRP PATIALA
**********
Application for exemption for accused RAHUL
***********
Sir,
2. That the undersigned received a telephonic message that

accused has gone to Dehli for his personal work and due to
Pandemic and Lockdown due to COVID-(SARAS) he is unable
to appear before this Hon’ble Court today.


his absence.

RAHUL may kindly be exempted for today in the interest of
justice.
Submitted by
Dated:-25.02.2021

Advocate, Patiala.

PATIALA
(MS. INDU BALA)
V.A Enterprises Versus Sai Confectionery

In the matter of complaint under Negotiable
Instrument Act .
***********

appearance of the complainant Hemant Singla .
***********
Sir,

2. That the counsel of complainant received a telephonic message

that complainant Hemant singla has gone out of station for his
3. That absence of the complainant Hemant Singla is neither


Hemant Singla kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by:
Dated:-09.03.2021
…….Petitioner
Through Counsel:

SANTOSH KUMAR
Advocates, Patiala
IN THE COURT OF MS. SARU MEHTA KAUSHIK, PRINCIPAL

JUDGE FAMILY COURT, PATIALA
Nikhil Goyal VS Ruchika Goyal

**********
Application for exemption of Respondent
Ruchika Goyal
***********
Sir,

respondent has been operated and doctor advised her to take
rest for few days and due to this reason she could not come to
court, as such she is unable to appear before this Hon’ble
Court today.


Ruchika Goyal may kindly be exempted for today in the
Submitted by
Dated:-16.03.2021
….Respondent
Through Counsel

Advocates, Patiala.

(SHIV MOHAN GARG)
Gurjant Gingh VS Gurwinder Singh & Ors

U/S 323,324,447,34 IPC
P. S. Samana
**********
Application for exemption of accused Gurwinder
Singh
***********
Sir,
2. That the co-accused has transpired that accused Gurwinder

Singh has gone out of station for his personal work, as such
he is unable to appear before this Hon’ble Court today.


his absence.
It is, therefore, prayed t``hat the application may
kindly be accepted and the personal appearance of accused
Gurwinder Singh may kindly be exempted for today in the
Submitted by
Dated:-25.03.2021
….Co- Accused
Through Counsel

Advocate , Patiala.
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE , PATIALA
Gurdeep Kaur Versus Sanambir Singh & ors
In the matter of criminal complaint .

**********
of the accused Bhupinder Singh Sandhu.
***********
Sir,

accused Bhupinder Singh Sandhu has gone out of station for


Bhupinder Singh Sandhu may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by
Dated: 06.04.2021
…. Accused
Through counsel

Advocate, Patiala
State Versus Rajvir Singh
F.I.R 14 dated 09/01/2016

U/s 457/380/411/489 IPC
***********
the accused Sandeep Singh.
***********
Sir,

2. That undersigned counsel received the telephonic message

that accused Sandeep Singh is suffering from viral fever and
adviced to quarantine himself for 14 days by the doctors, as
such, he is unable to appear before this Honble Court for
today.


absence and will not dispute the identity of accused Sandeep
Singh .

be accepted and the personal appearance of accused Sandeep
Submitted by:
Dated :15.04.2021
Co-accused
Through Counsel:

Advocate,Patiala

(MS. JUBLEE, PCS)
State Versus Madan Lal

F.I.R ____ dated _______
U/s ___________________
P.S ____________________
***********

the accused Madan Lal.
***********
Sir,

2. That accused has informed the undersigned that he is

suffering from viral fever, as such he is unable to appear


absence and will not dispute his identity.

be accepted and the personal appearance of accused Madan
Lal may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by:
Dated :17.05.2021
….accused
Through Counsel:

SANTOSH KUMAR
Advocates, Patiala

(AMANDEEP KAUR)
State VS Raju Yadav
FIR NO. 20 dated 07.02.2020

U/S 20/61/85 NDPS act
PS CITY RAJPURA
**********
Application for exemption for accused Raju Yadav.
***********
Sir,

accused has gone out of station for his personal work, as


in his absence.
be accepted and the personal appearance of accused Raju
Yadav may kindly be exempted for today in the interest of
justice.
Submitted by
Dated:-20.07.2021
….accused
Through Counsel:

Advocates Patiala
IN THE COURT OF MS. GURJIT KAUR DHILLON, PRESIDING

OFFICER JUVINILE JUSTICE BOARD, PATIALA
State VERSUS Jashandeep Singh

FIR No.56/2019
u/s 306,34 of IPC
P.S. Urban Estate, Patiala
**********
of the accused Jashandeep Singh.
***********
Sir,

accused is suffering from viral fever , as such he is unable to


Jashandeep Singh may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by
Dated: 29.07.2021
…. accused
Through counsel

Malkit Singh Dhillon,
Advocates, Patiala
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPTI GUPTA, ADDITIONAL,

PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, PATIALA
Nikhil Goyal VS Ruchika Goyal

**********
Application for exemption of Respondent
Ruchika Goyal
***********
Sir,

respondent is suffering from viral fever due to this reason she
could not come to court, as such she is unable to appear
before this Hon’ble Court today.


Ruchika Goyal may kindly be exempted for today in the
Submitted by
Dated:-20.08.2021
….Respondent
Through Counsel

Advocates, Patiala.
IN THE COURT OF JASPINDER SINGH(ADJ),PATIALA
State VS Karoor Singh

FIR NO.80 dated 23.04.2017
U/S 23/25/506/148/149 IPC & 3(1)(g) SC/ST Act
P.S. Urban Estate, Distt.Patiala
**********
Jagjeevan singh
***********
Sir,


accused Jagjeevan Singh is suffering from viral fever as such
he is unable to appear before this Hon’ble Court today.


Jagjeevan Singh may kindly be exempted for today in the
Submitted by
Dated:-20.09.2021
Harvinder Singh
….Accused
Through Counsel

Advocate
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST

CLASS,PATIALA (MS.JUBLEE)
Amanpreet kaur VS State of Punjab
FIR NO. 155 dated 06.10.2019

U/S 195A,341,506 IPC
PS LOHARI GATE
**********
AMANPREET KAUR
***********
Sir,
2. That accused has informed the undersigned that the
accused has to appear at district court Chandigarh for her
personal target matter in which day to day hearing is going,
today.

in his absence.

Amanpreet Kaur may kindly be exempted for today in the
Submitted by
Dated:-28.09.2021
….Accused
Through counsel

Advocate, Patiala
State Versus Rajvir Singh
F.I.R 14 dated 09/01/2016

U/s 457/380/411/489 IPC
***********
the accused Sandeep Singh.
***********
Sir,

2. That undersigned counsel received the telephonic message

that accused Sandeep Singh is paralysed as such, he is
unable to appear before this Honble Court for today.


absence and will not dispute the identity of accused Sandeep
Singh .

be accepted and the personal appearance of accused Sandeep
Submitted by:
Dated :05.10.2021
Co-accused
Through Counsel:

Advocate,Patiala

PATIALA.
Karandeep Singh Versus BachittarSingh

In the matter of Criminal complaint.
**********
of the complainant Karandeep Singh.
***********
Sir,

complainant Karandeep Singh has gone out of station for his


Karandeep Singh may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by
Dated:06.10.2021
…. Complainant
Through counsel

Santosh Kumar,
Advocates, Patiala
State VS Nirmal Singh

F.I.R No. 82 dated 26.12.2015
U/s 420 IPC
P.S. Sanaur, Distt. Patiala
**********
Application for exemption for accused Dalbir
Singh
***********
Sir,
1. That the above noted case is pending before this

accused Dalbir Singh has gone outdo station for his
personal work, as such, he is unable to appear before

4. That accused has no objection if evidence has recorded

in his absence.

accused Dalbir Singh may kindly be exempted for
today, in the interest of justice.
Submitted by
Dated:-06.10.2021
….Accused
Through Counsel
Narinder Singh Ratol

Advocate, Patiala.
(MS. JUBLEE, PCS)

F.I.R 139 dated 20.12.2013
U/s 406/498-A IPC
***********
the accused Baljeet kaur .
***********
Sir,

2. That co-accused has informed that accused Baljeet kaur is

suffering from viral fever, as such she is unable to appear


absence and will not dispute the identity of accused Baljeet
Kaur.

be accepted and the personal appearance of accused Baljeet
Submitted by:
Dated :11.10.2021
Co-accused
Through proxy Counsel:
Santosh Kumar
Advocates,Patiala
State VS Karor Singh

FIR NO. 80 dated 23.04.2017
U/S 323,325,506,148,149 IPC& 3(1)(G) SC/ST Act
PS Patran
**********
Application for exemption for accused jagjeevan
Singh.
***********
Sir,
2. That the co-accused informed that the accused Jagjeevan

Singh is suffering from viral fever, as such he is unable to


his absence.

Jagjeevan Singh may kindly be exempted for today in the
Submitted by
Dated:-12.10.2021
….Proxy Counsel
Gurjant Singh Vs Gurwinder Singh

In the matter of Complaint U/S
323/325/452/506/148/149 IPC
PS SADAR SAMANA
*********
Application for personal exemption accused
Jagdeep Singh
*************
Sir,

2. That the co-accused informed the undersigned counsel that

Jagdeep Singh is suffering from high fever today as such he is
3. That the absence of the accused Jagdeep Singh is not willful


his absence.
accepted and the personal appearance of the accused Jagdeep
Singh may kindly be exempted, in the interest of justice.
Submitted by:
Dated:-13.10.2021
Through counsel:

Advocate, Patiala.

PATIALA.
Axis Bank Versus Bala Rani

**********
appearance of the accused Hardeep Singh.
***********
Sir,
2. That the counsel of accused Hardeep Singh got a telephonic

message that ccused met with accident and he is unable to
walk, as such he is unable to appear before this Hon’ble Court
today.
3. That the absence of the accused Hardeep Singh is neither


Hardeep Singh may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by
Dated:-13.10.2021
…. accused
Through counsel

Advocates, Patiala
State Vs Shinder Singh Alias Sonu
F.I.R No. 196 dated 02.10.2016

PS Patran, Patiala.
*********
Shinder Singh alias Sonu
*************
Sir,

2. That the uncle of the accused namely Tejinder Singh
informed the counsel that the accused has gone Orissa for
relating to his work, as he is unable to attend this court.
bonafide.
4. That accused has no objection if any evidence is recorded
in his absence.

accepted and the personal appearance of the accused Shinder
Singh alias Sonu may kindly be exempted for today, in the interest
of justice.
Submitted by:
Dated: 19.10.2021
…….. Accused
Through counsel:

Jagpal Singh
Advocates, Patiala
Gurjant Singh Vs Gurwinder Singh

In the matter of Complaint U/S
323/325/452/506/148/149 IPC PS SADAR SAMANA
*********
Application for personal exemption of accused Avtar
Singh & Gurwinder Singh
*************
Sir,

2. That the co-accused has informed undersigned counsel tat
accused Avtar Singh & Gurwinder Singh have to go attend
funeral of their close relative, as such they are unable to
3. That the absence of the accused Avtar Singh & Gurwinder
Singh is not willful or intentional but bonafide.
4. That both accused have no objection if any evidence is
recorded their absence and they will not dispute their identity.

accepted and the personal appearance of the accused Avtar
Singh & Gurwinder Singh may kindly be exempted, in the
Submitted by
Dated:-16.05.2022
….Co-accused
Through Counsel:

Advocate, Patiala
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHI SWAPAN SHARMA, Ld.

PRESIDING OFFICER JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, PATIALA
State VERSUS Jashandeep Singh
FIR No.56/2019
u/s 306,34 of IPC
P.S. Urban Estate, Patiala
**********
appearance of the child conflict with
law Jashandeep Singh .
***********
Sir,
2. That the counsel of applicant got a telephonic message that he
has go out of station for his personal and domestic work , as
3. That the absence of the applicant is neither intentional nor

be accepted and the personal appearance of applicant
Jashandeep Singh may kindly be exempted for today.
Submitted by
Dated:- 27.05.2022
…. Applicant
Through counsel

Advocate, Patiala

(MS. ANKITA, PCS)
State Versus Jai Veer

F.I.R 95 dated 19.07.2017
U/s 279/337/427 IPC
P.S Julkan, Patiala
***********
the accused Jai veer
***********
Sir,

2. That accused Jai veer informed undersigned counsel through
telephonic that he has gone out of station for his urgent and
domestic work , as such, he is unable to appear before this
absence.

be accepted and the personal appearance of accused Jai Veer
Submitted by:
Dated:-08.06.2022
….Accused
Through Counsel:

Advocate, Patiala

(SH. GURKIRAN SINGH, PCS)
F.I.R 103/2012
U/s 406420,417,447,511,467,468,471120-B IPC
P.S SADAR, Patiala
***********
***********
Sir,

2. That accused Karail Singh has informed the undersigned

Counsel that he has to go PGI Chandigarh alongwith his wife
for her treatment, as such he is unable to appear before this
Honble Court for today.


their absence.

Submitted by:
Dated:- 07.07.2022
………..Accused
Through Counsel:

Advocate, Patiala

(SH. Gurkiran Singh, PCS)
In The Matter Of application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C

********
the complainant/applicant Amanpreet Kaur.
***********
Sir,
fixed for today.
2. That the counsel for the complainant/applicant has been

informed by complainant/applicant through telephonic message
that she has to attend hearing of her personal case at Punjab &
Haryana High Court, as such she is unable to appear before


exempted for today.
Dated:-13.09.2022 Submitted by:
….Complainant/applicant
Through Counsel:

Advocates, Patiala

Application For Exemption

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Application For Exemption

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Application For Exemption

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE, PATIALA.

Gurjant Singh Vs Gurwinder Singh and others

FIR No. 0198 dated 16.12.2016

1. That the above noted case is pending in this Hon’ble Court

It is, therefore, prayed that the application may kindly be

Gagandeep Singh Gheeray

State Versus Nirmal Singh

FIR 82 dated 2015

It is respectfully submitted as under:-

1. That the above noted case is pending before this Hon’ble

It is, therefore, prayed that the application may kindly

BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATOR CUM COMMISSIONER,

In the matter of arbitration claim petition

GAGANDEEP SINGH GHEERAY

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, PATIALA

FIR NO.56 dated 11.04.2019

1. That the above noted case is pending in this Hon’ble

2. That the counsel of accused got a telephonic message that

3. That the absence of accused is neither intentional nor

It is, therefore, prayed that the application may kindly

GAGANDEEP SINGH GHEERAY

Karnail Kaur VS Union of India

GAGANDEEP SINGH GHEERAY

IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA GOEL JMIC, PATIALA

FIR NO.60 dated 18.6.2017

5. That the counsel of complainant got a telephonic message

6. That the absence of witness is neither intentional nor

It is, therefore, prayed that the application may kindly

GAGANDEEP SINGH GHEERAY

IN THE COURT OF ,PATIALA

Ruchika Goyal VS Nikhal Goyal

State VS Kulwant Singh Alias Kala

FIR NO. 40 dated 02.06.2018

U/S 398/399/402/201/411/412 IPC

8. That the counsel of accused got a telephonic message that

9. That the absence of accused is neither intentional nor

10. That accused has no objection if any evidence

It is, therefore, prayed that the application may kindly

FIR NO. 80 dated 23.04.2017

12. That the counsel of accused got a telephonic message

13. That the absence of accused is neither intentional nor

14. That accused has no objection if any evidence

It is, therefore, prayed that the application may kindly

16. That the counsel of accused got a telephonic message

17. That the absence of accused is neither intentional nor

18. That accused has no objection if any evidence

It is, therefore, prayed that the application may kindly

Gagandeep Singh Gheeray,

State VERSUS Nikhil Goyal

2. That the counsel of complainant got a telephonic message that

3. That the absence of the witness Kiran Garg is neither

It is, therefore, prayed that the application may kindly

Gagandeep Singh Gheeray,

Rajwinder Kaur Versus Razia

In the matter of Criminal Complaint

It is respectfully submitted as under:-

1. That the above noted case is pending before this Hon’ble