- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35784 CRL.P No. 12243 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12243 OF 2025 BETWEEN: CHENNAM RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O CHNNAM RANGAIAH R/AT NO. H -108 SRIRAM SPURTHY APARTMENT B BLOCK, AECS LAYOUT, NEAR CMRIT COLLEGE BROOKFIELD, KUNNDALAHALLI, MARATHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH, KARNATAKA - 560 037. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. S.M. KUTTAPPA S/O MEDAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LIMITED, NO. 1608, B BLOCK, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35784 CRL.P No. 12243 of 2025 SAHAKARANAGARA, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 092. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH, VIDE ORDER DATED 09.09.2025) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ISSUING OF PROCLAMATION DATED 08.10.2024 IN C.C.NO.4739/2021 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 420 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC REGISTERED WITH KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE 7th ACMM, BENGALURU PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner3accused No.3 assailing the order dated 08.10.2024 passed in C.C. No.4739/2021 by the Court of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, whereby a proclamation was issued against him under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35784 CRL.P No. 12243 of 2025 of Criminal Procedure. Though notice has not been served on the second respondent3complainant, in view of the undertaking furnished by the petitioner that he will henceforth remain present before the trial court on all dates of hearing, this Court is inclined to dispense with notice to the second respondent, since the present order does not touch upon the merits of the case so as to prejudice the complainant. 2. Brief facts of the case: The petitioner is facing trial in C.C. No.4739/2021 for an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, has invoked the provisions of Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and issued a proclamation against the petitioner, which is now under challenge. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the impugned order, has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Tarabai v. The State of Karnataka and Another (Criminal Petition No.200367/2022, decided on 19.04.2022). He would contend that issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. must be preceded by the recording of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35784 CRL.P No. 12243 of 2025 cogent reasons indicating that the accused has either absconded or is deliberately concealing himself so as to prevent the execution of a warrant. It is further submitted that proclamation is an extraordinary measure to be invoked only in deserving cases and not as a matter of routine. 4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader, in view of the undertaking now given by the petitioner to secure his presence before the trial court, submits that if the petitioner honours such undertaking by filing it formally within one week, the impugned order may be set aside, subject to strict compliance with the said undertaking. 5. On perusal of the records, it is evident that the petitioner is being prosecuted for an offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The proceedings are admittedly in the nature of a summons trial. For non-execution of summons, the learned Magistrate has, without adequate reasoning, proceeded to take the drastic step of issuing a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. The impugned order does not disclose any satisfaction recorded by the Magistrate to the effect that the petitioner had absconded or was intentionally evading the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35784 CRL.P No. 12243 of 2025 process of law. As held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, issuance of proclamation is an exceptional remedy and cannot be resorted to as a matter of course. The order under challenge, therefore, demonstrates a lack of application of mind and non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. 6. Be that as it may, in view of the undertaking furnished by the petitioner3accused No.3 before this Court that he will appear before the trial court on every date of hearing, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order warrants interference. Accordingly, the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C. No.4739/2021, issuing a proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C., is liable to be recalled, subject to the petitioner honouring his undertaking to appear before the trial court as and when required. 7. For the forgoing reasons, this court passes following ORDER i) The impugned order dated 08.10.2024 passed in C.C. No.4739/2021 by the Court of the VII Additional Chief - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35784 CRL.P No. 12243 of 2025 Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed and set aside. ii) The petitioner shall regularly appear before the learned Magistrate on all dates of hearing until the disposal of the case, unless exempted by the trial court upon a proper application seeking exemption from personal appearance. iii) The petitioner shall file, within one week from today, an undertaking before this Court affirming his commitment to comply with the above directions and to cooperate with the proceedings before the learned Magistrate. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53 CT: BHK