CRM-M-31148 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 284 Radhika Vashishth State of Haryana and another CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 28.03.2025 (Annexure P Magistrate First Class, 2019, titled as the Negotiable Instruments Act had been declared a proclaimed 2. grounds and it has been argued by sustainable in the eyes of law down in law was not followed properly. compromise arrived at between the parties, the aforesaid complaint stands dismissed as withdrawn on 02.04.2025. order is liable to be set aside. 31148-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Radhika Vashishth Versus State of Haryana and another CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Jasinder S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Magistrate First Class, Kaithal in Complaint titled as Rajbir Singh vs. Radhika Vashisht the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘N. I. Act’) had been declared a proclaimed person. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the grounds and it has been argued by her counsel that the sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, the procedure as laid down in law was not followed properly. compromise arrived at between the parties, the aforesaid complaint stands dismissed as withdrawn on 02.04.2025. Hence, it is urged that the order is liable to be set aside. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-31148-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.07.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Jasinder S. Sekhon, Advocate The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of order dated , passed by the Court of learned Judicial Complaint case bearing NACT No. 920 of Rajbir Singh vs. Radhika Vashisht, filed under Section 138 of (for short ‘N. I. Act’), whereby the petitioner The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the counsel that the impugned order is not as while passing the same, the procedure as laid Even otherwise, on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties, the aforesaid complaint stands Hence, it is urged that the impugned - 2025 (O&M) 03.07.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondents The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section for quashing of order dated Judicial case bearing NACT No. 920 of filed under Section 138 of , whereby the petitioner The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the impugned order is not as while passing the same, the procedure as laid Even otherwise, on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties, the aforesaid complaint stands impugned MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.03 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-31148 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 trial Cour against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed of the considered opinion that the impugned order suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed with arising therefrom. 5. discussing the requirements necessary for issuance and publication of proclamation against an absconder under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and for declar him as a proclaimed person/offender. These requirements have been discussed from time to time in Bishundayal Mahton and others Vs. Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366, Devender Singh Negi Vs. State of U.P. : 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783, Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826, Shokat Ali Vs. State of of Punjab : (P&H) 2015 (8) R.C.R. (criminal) 166, Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 550, Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368, Birad Dan Vs. State : 1958 CriLJ 965, and Pal Singh Vs. The State : 1955 CriLJ 318. 6. copies of zimini orders passed by the trial Court 31148-2025 (O&M) I have heard learned counsel for t 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 by the trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed of the considered opinion that the impugned order suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed with arising therefrom. There are catena of judgments of different High Courts discussing the requirements necessary for issuance and publication of proclamation against an absconder under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and for declar him as a proclaimed person/offender. These requirements have been discussed from time to time in Rohit Kumar Vs. Stat Bishundayal Mahton and others Vs. Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366, Devender Singh Negi Vs. State of U.P. : 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783, Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826, Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (Crimin of Punjab : (P&H) 2015 (8) R.C.R. (criminal) 166, Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 550, Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368, Birad Dan Vs. State : 1958 CriLJ 965, Negi alias Debu Vs. State of U.P. and another, 1994 Cri LJ 1783 Pal Singh Vs. The State : 1955 CriLJ 318. After going through the material placed on record as well as the copies of zimini orders passed by the trial Court -2- 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 t from the date of initiating proceedings of proclamation against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed person, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed with all the consequential proceedings There are catena of judgments of different High Courts discussing the requirements necessary for issuance and publication of proclamation against an absconder under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and for declar him as a proclaimed person/offender. These requirements have been discussed Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561 Bishundayal Mahton and others Vs. Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366, Devender Singh Negi Vs. State of U.P. : 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783, Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826, Shokat Ali Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339, Dilbagh Singh Vs. State of Punjab : (P&H) 2015 (8) R.C.R. (criminal) 166, Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 550, Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368, Birad Dan Vs. State : 1958 Negi alias Debu Vs. State of U.P. and another, 1994 Cri LJ 1783 Pal Singh Vs. The State : 1955 CriLJ 318. After going through the material placed on record as well as the copies of zimini orders passed by the trial Court, it is revealed that after - petitioner 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 of proclamation , I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order suffers from material all the consequential proceedings There are catena of judgments of different High Courts discussing the requirements necessary for issuance and publication of proclamation against an absconder under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and for declaring him as a proclaimed person/offender. These requirements have been discussed e of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561, Bishundayal Mahton and others Vs. Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366, Devender Singh Negi Vs. State of U.P. : 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783, Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826, Shokat Ali al) 339, Dilbagh Singh Vs. State of Punjab : (P&H) 2015 (8) R.C.R. (criminal) 166, Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 550, Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368, Birad Dan Vs. State : 1958 Negi alias Debu Vs. State of U.P. and another, 1994 Cri LJ 1783 After going through the material placed on record as well as the after MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.03 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-31148 issuance of summoning order, notice was ordered to be issued against the petitioner/accused. The same could not be issued initially for want of compliance. Thereafter, there was outbreak of pandemic Covid the summons could not be issued agai were not issued as the complainant failed to furnish correct address of the petitioner. On 28.11.2024, counsel for the complainant submitted that the address of the petitioner was same as mentioned in the complaint a bailable warrants were ordered to be issued, which were received back with the report that the petitioner had left the given address. Warrants of arrest were thereafter issued, which too had been received back unexecuted. The learned trial Magistra initiation of proceedings for publication of proclamation against the petitioner for 28.03.2025. By saying that presence of the petitioner could not be secured through ordinary process, the satisfaction s cannot be stated to be proper since no effective service of notice/bailable warrants/non petitioner till that date. switching to the proclamation proceedings can itself be stated to be bad in the eyes of law. Reliance in this context can be placed upon of Punjab : 2013 SCC Online (P&H) 8663 7. reveals that the proclamation was not read over the town or per Section 82 (2) of the Cr.P.C.. first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which 31148-2025 (O&M) issuance of summoning order, notice was ordered to be issued against the petitioner/accused. The same could not be issued initially for want of compliance. Thereafter, there was outbreak of pandemic Covid the summons could not be issued against the petitioner. Thereafter, summons were not issued as the complainant failed to furnish correct address of the petitioner. On 28.11.2024, counsel for the complainant submitted that the address of the petitioner was same as mentioned in the complaint a bailable warrants were ordered to be issued, which were received back with the report that the petitioner had left the given address. Warrants of arrest were thereafter issued, which too had been received back unexecuted. The learned trial Magistrate, vide order dated 07.02.2025, gave direction for initiation of proceedings for publication of proclamation against the petitioner for 28.03.2025. By saying that presence of the petitioner could not be secured through ordinary process, the satisfaction s cannot be stated to be proper since no effective service of notice/bailable warrants/non-bailable warrants was proved to have petitioner till that date. As such, the action of the trial Court by switching to the proclamation proceedings can itself be stated to be bad in the eyes of law. Reliance in this context can be placed upon of Punjab : 2013 SCC Online (P&H) 8663 Further, a perusal of the statement of the serving police official reveals that the proclamation was not read over the town or village in which the petitioner was supposed to be residing. Section 82 (2) of the Cr.P.C.. for publication first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which -3- issuance of summoning order, notice was ordered to be issued against the petitioner/accused. The same could not be issued initially for want of compliance. Thereafter, there was outbreak of pandemic Covid-19 and hence, nst the petitioner. Thereafter, summons were not issued as the complainant failed to furnish correct address of the petitioner. On 28.11.2024, counsel for the complainant submitted that the address of the petitioner was same as mentioned in the complaint and then bailable warrants were ordered to be issued, which were received back with the report that the petitioner had left the given address. Warrants of arrest were thereafter issued, which too had been received back unexecuted. The te, vide order dated 07.02.2025, gave direction for initiation of proceedings for publication of proclamation against the petitioner for 28.03.2025. By saying that presence of the petitioner could not be secured through ordinary process, the satisfaction so recorded by the trial Magistrate cannot be stated to be proper since no effective service of notice/bailable bailable warrants was proved to have been effected upon the As such, the action of the trial Court by switching to the proclamation proceedings can itself be stated to be bad in the eyes of law. Reliance in this context can be placed upon Manjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab : 2013 SCC Online (P&H) 8663. Further, a perusal of the statement of the serving police official reveals that the proclamation was not read over in some conspicuous place of petitioner was supposed to be residing. publication, the proclamation has to be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which - issuance of summoning order, notice was ordered to be issued against the petitioner/accused. The same could not be issued initially for want of 19 and hence, nst the petitioner. Thereafter, summons were not issued as the complainant failed to furnish correct address of the petitioner. On 28.11.2024, counsel for the complainant submitted that the nd then bailable warrants were ordered to be issued, which were received back with the report that the petitioner had left the given address. Warrants of arrest were thereafter issued, which too had been received back unexecuted. The te, vide order dated 07.02.2025, gave direction for initiation of proceedings for publication of proclamation against the petitioner for 28.03.2025. By saying that presence of the petitioner could not be secured o recorded by the trial Magistrate cannot be stated to be proper since no effective service of notice/bailable been effected upon the As such, the action of the trial Court by switching to the proclamation proceedings can itself be stated to be bad in the Manjit Kaur vs. State Further, a perusal of the statement of the serving police official in some conspicuous place of petitioner was supposed to be residing. As the proclamation has to be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.03 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-31148 the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accuse resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house. The three sub are conjunc publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are proved. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon The State of W.B. : 1973 8. view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities petition is allowed and the impugned order dated passed by the Complaint case bearing NACT No. 920 of 2019, Radhika Vashisht petitioner had been declared a proclaimed consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 03.07.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 31148-2025 (O&M) the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accuse resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house. The three sub-clauses (a)-(c) in Section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C. are conjunctive and not disjunctive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are Reliance in this regard can be placed upon The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368. Accordingly, in view of the discussion as made above 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, Complaint case bearing NACT No. 920 of 2019, Radhika Vashisht, filed under Section 138 of the N. I. Act petitioner had been declared a proclaimed consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 03.07.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -4- the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the (c) in Section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C. tive and not disjunctive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. 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 28.03.2025 (Annexure P dicial Magistrate First Class, Kaithal Complaint case bearing NACT No. 920 of 2019, titled as Rajbir Singh vs. filed under Section 138 of the N. I. Act, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No - the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to some d ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the (c) in Section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C. tive and not disjunctive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. and also in , the present 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-4), Kaithal in Rajbir Singh vs. , whereby the , is quashed with all MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.03 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document