CRM-M-19604 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 152 Deen Dayal @ Sanjay State of Haryana and another CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. 528 of Bhar 23.12.2024 Magistrate First Class, Sanjay, arising out of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 petitioner had been declared a proclaimed 2. grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in regularly appearing before the learned trial Court but he could not appear before the Court on 20.09.2024 due to h cancellation of his bail and issuance of non ultimately, proclamation was issued against him. could not appear before the Court as he was notice/warrants issued by the 19604-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Deen Dayal @ Sanjay Versus Haryana and another CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 23.12.2024 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Magistrate First Class, Safidon in case titled as , arising out a complaint filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 petitioner had been declared a proclaimed The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned complaint regularly appearing before the learned trial Court but he could not appear before the Court on 20.09.2024 due to h cancellation of his bail and issuance of non ultimately, proclamation was issued against him. could not appear before the Court as he was notice/warrants issued by the learned trial Court. More so, t -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19604-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.04.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section tiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of order dated , passed by the Court of learned Judicial case titled as Rajesh vs. Deendayal @ a complaint filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N. I. Act’), whereby the person. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been complaint. He was on bail and was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court but he could not appear before the Court on 20.09.2024 due to his ill health, which resulted into cancellation of his bail and issuance of non-bailable warrants against him and ultimately, proclamation was issued against him. Subsequently, the petitioner could not appear before the Court as he was never served with an trial Court. More so, the petitioner had - 2025 (O&M) .04.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondents The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section for quashing of order dated Judicial Rajesh vs. Deendayal @ a complaint filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 138 whereby the The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been He was on bail and was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court but he could not appear is ill health, which resulted into bailable warrants against him and Subsequently, the petitioner never served with any he petitioner had MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.09 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19604 been declared a proclaimed person without prescribed under Section 82 proceedings. aside. 3. length and have also gone through the material placed on record. 4. learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed by the learned 82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner person, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 5. copies of zim 14.10.2024 received back which, the him for 09.12.2024 against the petitioner for 03.12.2024 proclamation was received executed on 15.11.2024 requiring the petitioner cause his appearance before the trial Court on the petitioner was not granted mandatory period of 30 days to cause hi 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 19604-2025 (O&M) been declared a proclaimed person without prescribed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. proceedings. Hence, it is urged that the I have heard learned counsel for the and have also gone through the material placed on record. On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed learned trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed , I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 suffers from some illegalities and is liable to be quashed with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. After going through the material placed on reco copies of zimni orders passed by the learned 14.10.2024, the non-bailable warrants issued against the received back served through his brother but he failed to appear, on account of the learned trial Court had ordered for issuance of proclamation against 09.12.2024. Thereafter, on 04.11.2024, fresh proclamation was issued against the petitioner for 03.12.2024. Vide order dated 25.11.2024, the proclamation was received executed on 15.11.2024 requiring the petitioner cause his appearance before the trial Court on the petitioner was not granted mandatory period of 30 days to cause hi 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 -2- been declared a proclaimed person without following the proper procedure Cr.P.C. He is ready to join the Court hat the impugned order is liable to be set I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable and have also gone through the material placed on record. On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings under Section till the date of declaring him a proclaimed , I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated illegalities and is liable to be quashed with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. ng through the material placed on record as well as the learned trial Court, it is revealed that on bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were through his brother but he failed to appear, on account of trial Court had ordered for issuance of proclamation against Thereafter, on 04.11.2024, fresh proclamation was issued Vide order dated 25.11.2024, the proclamation was received executed on 15.11.2024 requiring the petitioner cause his appearance before the trial Court on 03.12.2024, which means that the petitioner was not granted mandatory period of 30 days to cause hi 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 - following the proper procedure He is ready to join the Court impugned order is liable to be set at considerable On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings under Section till the date of declaring him a proclaimed , I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated illegalities and is liable to be quashed with all rd as well as the revealed that on petitioner were through his brother but he failed to appear, on account of trial Court had ordered for issuance of proclamation against Thereafter, on 04.11.2024, fresh proclamation was issued Vide order dated 25.11.2024, the proclamation was received executed on 15.11.2024 requiring the petitioner to which means that the petitioner was not granted mandatory period of 30 days to cause his 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 MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.09 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19604 time of not less than 30 days is required to be given to the accused from the date of publishing such in this regard can be placed upon Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 (Criminal) 339. the mandatory period of 30 days, fact that it could not have extended the time by simply adjourning the case as a fresh proclamation was required to be published once the period betwee issuance of publication of proclamation and the specified period of hearing was less than 30 days. Reference in this context can be made to Singh Vs. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) R.C.R. (criminal) 166 6. view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities petition is allowed and the impugned order dated passed by the titled as Rajesh vs. Deendayal @ Sanjay respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of the had been declared a proclaimed proceedings arising 7. Court proceedings which would obviously help in speedy conclusion of trial, he is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of 15 days from today an bail, subject to his furnishing fresh personal/surety bonds to its satisfaction. 19604-2025 (O&M) 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 Vs. Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339. Further, while adjourning the case to mandatory period of 30 days, the learned trial Court failed to consider the it could not have extended the time by simply adjourning the case as a fresh proclamation was required to be published once the period betwee issuance of publication of proclamation and the specified period of hearing was less than 30 days. Reference in this context can be made to Singh Vs. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) R.C.R. (criminal) 166 Accordingly, in view of the discuss view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities petition is allowed and the impugned order dated passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajesh vs. Deendayal @ Sanjay respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of the had been declared a proclaimed person, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is ready to join the Court proceedings which would obviously help in speedy conclusion of trial, he 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 him on bail, subject to his furnishing fresh personal/surety bonds to its satisfaction. -3- time of not less than 30 days is required to be given to the accused from the proclamation which is mandatory in nature. Reliance Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. State of Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR , while adjourning the case to further date to complete the learned trial Court failed to consider the it could not have extended the time by simply adjourning the case as a fresh proclamation was required to be published once the period betwee 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. 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 allowed and the impugned order dated 23.12.2024 (Annexure P Judicial Magistrate First Class, Safidon in case Rajesh vs. Deendayal @ Sanjay, arising out a complaint filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of the N. I. Act, whereby the petitioner , is quashed with all consequential Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is ready to join the Court proceedings which would obviously help in speedy conclusion of trial, he is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of 15 d on doing so, the learned trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to his furnishing fresh personal/surety bonds to its satisfaction. - time of not less than 30 days is required to be given to the accused from the proclamation which is mandatory in nature. Reliance State of Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR complete the learned trial Court failed to consider the it could not have extended the time by simply adjourning the case as a fresh proclamation was required to be published once the period between issuance of publication of proclamation and the specified period of hearing Dilbagh and also in , the present 23.12.2024 (Annexure P-9), case , arising out a complaint filed by whereby the petitioner , is quashed with all consequential Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is ready to join the Court proceedings which would obviously help in speedy conclusion of trial, he is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of 15 d on doing so, the learned trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to his furnishing fresh personal/surety bonds to its satisfaction. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.09 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19604 8. Court, his arrest 9. the learned to be dismissed. 10. Rs. 5,000/ which in turn shall be disbursed to respondent No. 2/complainant. 08.04.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportabl 19604-2025 (O&M) Till the appearance of the petitioner before the Court, his arrest shall remain stayed. It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before learned trial Court within the stipulated time to be dismissed. However, this relief shall be subject to payment of cost of 5,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner with the learned trial Court, which in turn shall be disbursed to respondent No. 2/complainant. .04.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -4- Till the appearance of the petitioner before the learned is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before the stipulated time, this petition shall be deemed However, this relief shall be subject to payment of cost of , to be deposited by the petitioner with the learned trial Court, which in turn shall be disbursed to respondent No. 2/complainant. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No - learned trial is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before , this petition shall be deemed However, this relief shall be subject to payment of cost of , to be deposited by the petitioner with the learned trial Court, MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.09 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document