CRM-M-32643-2023 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 131-2 CRM-M-32643-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.07.2026 Ruma Bansal ...Petitioner Versus M/s Monga & Sons ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Pranav Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (which corresponds to Section 528 of BNSS) seeking quashing of Complaint No. NACT-619 of 2022 dated 03.03.2022 instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N. I. Act’), titled M/s Monga & Sons v. M/s Sanman Rice Mills & others, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, along with the summoning order dated 04.03.2022 and all subsequent and consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the order dated 18.05.2023 whereby the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not press the challenge to the complaint, the summoning order or the proceedings arising therefrom and restricts the present petition only to the prayer for quashing of the aforesaid order dated 18.05.2023 declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.22 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32643-2023 (O&M) -2- 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned case. The petitioner was never duly served with the summons issued by the learned trial Court and was declared a proclaimed person without complying with the mandatory provisions of law. The petitioner had no intention to evade the process of law and her non- appearance was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is argued that the petitioner is now ready and willing to appear before the trial Court and participate in the proceedings. Accordingly, since the petitioner has confined the present petition only to the challenge against the order dated 18.05.2023 declaring her as a proclaimed person, the said order deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice. Hence, it is urged that the petition deserves to be allowed to that extent. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and the petitioner had rightly been declared a proclaimed person as she was running away from the process of Court. It is, thus, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 6. On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed by the learned trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring her a proclaimed person, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 18.05.2023 suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.22 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32643-2023 (O&M) -3- 7. After going through the material placed on record as well as the copies of zimni orders passed by the learned trial Court, it is revealed that on 21.01.2023, since the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were received back unserved, the learned trial Court had ordered for issuance of proclamation against her for 31.01.2023. A bare perusal of this order shows that the learned trial Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has not recorded its proper satisfaction that the petitioner had absconded or was concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561. 8. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that proclamation was received back executed only on 31.03.2023, requiring the petitioner to cause her appearance before the trial Court on that very date, which means that the petitioner was not granted mandatory period of 30 days to cause her appearance before the learned trial Court. Hence, the same was in clear violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., as per which, a specified time of not less than 30 days is required to be given to the accused from the date of publishing such proclamation which is mandatory in nature. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Gurappa Gugal and others v. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali v. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339. However, the case was adjourned to 18.05.2023 for completing the mandatory period of 30 days but the learned trial Court failed to consider the fact that it could not have extended the time by simply adjourning the case as a fresh proclamation was required to be published once MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.22 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32643-2023 (O&M) -4- the period between issuance of publication of proclamation and the specified period of hearing was less than 30 days. Reference in this context can be made to Dilbagh Singh Vs. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) R.C.R. (criminal) 166. 9. Accordingly, in view of the discussion as made above and also in view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities, the present petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 18.05.2023 (Annexure P-14), passed by the Court of learned trial Court in the aforementioned complaint is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 10. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is ready to join the Court proceedings which would obviously help in speedy conclusion of trial, she is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of 15 days from today and on doing so, the learned trial Court shall release her on bail, subject to her furnishing personal/surety bonds to its satisfaction. 11. Till the appearance of the petitioner before the learned trial Court, her arrest shall remain stayed. 12. It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before the learned trial Court within the stipulated time, this petition shall be deemed to be dismissed. 13. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition seeking quashing of complaint as well as summoning order along with consequential proceedings, if so advised. 21.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.22 10:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document