2026:HHC:24810 _____________________________ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 498 of 2026 Reserved on: 21.05.2026 Date of Decision24.06.2026 Bhoop Singh ...Petitioner Versus Sushma Devi ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners : Mr. T.K.Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.2 Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the order dated 30.04.2026 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, District Shimla (learned Trial Court) in the case titled Shushma Devi vs. Bhoop Singh @ Buphesh vide which the petitioner 2 2026:HHC:24810 (accused before learned trial Court) was declared a proclaimed offender. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned trial Court for convenience) 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant filed a complaint against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused, and summoned the accused. The accused was served by way of bailable warrants returnable for 09.07.2024. He failed to appear before the Court, and the Court issued a non- bailable warrant of arrest. The accused failed to appear before the Court, and a written proclamation was issued requiring the presence of the accused before the Court on 28.04.2026. He failed to appear before the Court; hence, 3 2026:HHC:24810 the learned trial Court declared him a proclaimed offender. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused has filed the present petition asserting that he had not received the summons and was not aware of the proceedings. Learned Trial Court wrongly observed that the accused had absconded and his presence was necessary to be secured by the issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest. The petitioner was residing at Manali for many years before the registration of the criminal case, and he was not available at the address furnished by the complainant; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the proclamation be set aside. 4. Mr T.K Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in declaring the accused a proclaimed offender. The accused was never served and could not 4 2026:HHC:24810 have appeared before the Court because of a lack of knowledge; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 5. Mr Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.2/State submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1 is private, and the State has no submissions. 6. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. Learned Trial Court had specifically noticed in the order dated 09.07.2024 that the accused was not present despite service on bailable warrants. The order passed by the learned Trial Court carries with it a presumption of correctness, and the plea taken by the accused that he was not served is clearly incorrect. 5 2026:HHC:24810 8. The photocopies of the non-bailable warrants of arrest issued by the Court have been placed on record. An endorsement was made by the serving Constable on 25.07.2025 that, as per the version of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner had gone to Chandigarh, and he was not in contact with his father. The report made by the serving Constable on the non-bailable warrants of arrest issued for 11.07.2025 mentions that the petitioner had gone to Kullu for personal work, and it was not known when he would return. These reports were made by the petitioner’s father and falsify the stand taken by the petitioner before this Court that the petitioner was residing at Manali for many years before the institution of the complaint before the learned Trial Court. 9. The reports made by the petitioner’s father clearly show that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings, and the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court that the petitioner was evading service and 6 2026:HHC:24810 could not be summoned ordinarily cannot be faulted. Since the petitioner failed to appear before the Court despite the issuance of repeated non-bailable warrants of arrest, the learned trial court cannot be faulted for issuing the proclamation requiring the petitioner's presence before the Court, and no interference is required with it in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 10. The petitioner has the remedy of surrendering before the learned trial Court and seeking bail. However, he chose to appear before this Court by making a false allegation that he was residing at Manali for many years; therefore, the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. 11. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed with costs of ₹5000/-, which shall be deposited in the ‘Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund’ within a period of four weeks, failing which, steps will be taken to recover it as per the law. 7 2026:HHC:24810 12. The present petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. 13. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. ( Rakesh Kainthla ) Judge 24th June, 2026. (ravinder)