2026:HHC:27505 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 660 of 2026 Reserved on: 30.6.2026 Date of Decision: 8.7.2026. Man Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of HP & ors. …. Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2-State : Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.3 : Nemo. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for setting aside the orders dated 31.12.2024 and 24.02.2025, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Case No. 1889 of 2015, titled Tara Chand Vs. Man Singh. 2. It has been asserted that respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioner before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, H.P. (learned Trial Court) for the commission 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:27505 of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). The learned Trial Court ordered the issuance of a summons against the petitioner on 04.11.2015. The summons, bailable warrants and non-bailable warrants were returned unexecuted. The petitioner could not appear before the Court because of circumstances beyond his control. The Court issued a proclamation on 26.09.2024 and declared him a proclaimed offender on 31.12.2024. The case file was ordered to be consigned to the Record Room on 24.02.2025 after recording the complainant’s statement. The order passed by the learned Trial Court is bad because there was no compliance with the statutory condition. The Court should be satisfied that the person had absconded or he was evading himself to avoid appearance in the Court. Learned Trial Court relied upon the report of the serving constable without independently verifying whether the petitioner was actually evading service or not. The proclamation was not published in a newspaper. The issuance of a proclamation is a drastic step and stigmatises a person as a proclaimed offender. It can have serious civil and penal consequences and should not be routinely passed. The petitioner is a bona fide resident of Village and Post Office Neoli, Tehsil and 3 2026:HHC:27505 District Kullu, H.P. He is ready and willing to appear before the Court. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 3. I have heard Mr Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2-State. 4. Mr Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in issuing a proclamation to secure the petitioner’s presence. The petitioner was not served personally, and the proclamation could not have been issued. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 5. Mr Jitender Sharrma, learned Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2-State, submitted that the dispute is between the private parties and the State has nothing to say in the matter. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The petitioner asserted in the present petition that he is a permanent resident of Village and Post Office Neoli, Tehsil 4 2026:HHC:27505 and District Kullu, H.P. The copies of the order sheets filed before this Court show that the summons, bailable warrants and non- bailable warrants were returned un-executed. Ultimately, the Court held on 05.09.2023 that the accused was concealing himself to avoid the service upon him. Hence, a proclamation was ordered to be issued. The Court recorded on 26.09.2024 that the petitioner was intentionally evading the execution of summons, bailable warrants and non-bailable warrants. He was concealing himself so that non-bailable warrants could not be executed. The Court held on 31.12.2024 that the proclamation was duly served as per the law. The order sheets filed before the Court show that the summons, bailable warrants, non-bailable warrants of arrest and proclamation were issued at the address Village and Post Office, Neoli, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P., which is stated to be the petitioner’s permanent address in the present proceedings. The petitioner has not provided any reason as to why the summons or bailable warrants could not be served upon him if he were residing at the address furnished by him. Thus, the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court that the petitioner was concealing himself to avoid the service cannot be faulted. 5 2026:HHC:27505 8. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court requiring the interference on this point in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 9. The petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the learned Trial Court and seeking bail. However, instead of doing so, he approached this Court and filed a petition for an interim stay, which clearly shows that he is interested in prolonging the trial. Therefore, this conduct speaks volumes about his intent. 10. In view of the above, the present petition fails and is dismissed, with the cost of ₹5,000/-, 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. 11. The observations made here-in-above are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 8th July, 2026 (Chander)