CRM-M-23795 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 140 SAGAR BHARDWAJ & ANR. STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SURYA P Section 528 prayer made by the petitioner is to quash (Annexure P Panipat City 2. while holding a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, proclaimed person 3. petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under 23795-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH SAGAR BHARDWAJ & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The present petition has been filed 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita prayer made by the petitioner is to quash (Annexure P-1), for the offence under Section 174 Panipat City, District Panipat. By virtue of abovementioned order, the learned trial Court while holding a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, proclaimed persons. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23795-2026 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 20.05.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH for the petitioners. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, wherein the prayer made by the petitioner is to quash FIR No.1440 dated 25.09.2023 under Section 174-A of IPC, Police Station By virtue of abovementioned order, the learned trial Court while holding a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, declared the petitioners to be shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under (O&M) .....PETITIONERS .....RESPONDENT under , 2023, wherein the 25.09.2023 Police Station By virtue of abovementioned order, the learned trial Court while holding a trial for the commission of offence punishable under to be shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.20 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23795 Section 138 of NI Act and in the abovementioned case appearance, on various occasions against the petitioner. H petitioner 4. Court issued 17.08.2023 duly effected case was adjourned to dated 18.09.2023 persons. 5. that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves be quashed BNSS (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC) declaring the petitioner 6. 7. on behalf of respondent hereby dispensed with. 8. 9. trial Court has committed an error declared the petitioner 23795-2026 (O&M) 2 Section 138 of NI Act and in the abovementioned case appearance, on various occasions, the non against the petitioner. However, the same could not be executed petitioners were not residing at the given address Subsequently, vide order dated issued a proclamation against the petitioner for 17.08.2023 proclamation issued against the petitioner duly effected and statement of serving official was recorded case was adjourned to 18.09.2023. Thereafter, 18.09.2023, the learned trial Court The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves be quashed, as the necessary procedure prescribed under Section 84 of the (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC) declaring the petitioners proclaimed persons Notice of motion. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice hereby dispensed with. Heard. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process, it declared the petitioners to be proclaimed Section 138 of NI Act and in the abovementioned case due to non non-bailable warrants were issued owever, the same could not be executed as the s were not residing at the given address. Subsequently, vide order dated 25.07.2023, the learned trial proclamation against the petitioner for 18.09.2023. proclamation issued against the petitioner was received back and statement of serving official was recorded and thereafter, Thereafter, by virtue of impugned order the learned trial Court declared the petitioners proclaimed The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves prescribed under Section 84 of the (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC) was not complied with, while persons. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears Hence service of notice upon the State It has been contended on behalf of petitioners that the learned when without following due process, it proclaimed persons. It has been further due to non- issued as the learned trial On received back and thereafter, virtue of impugned order proclaimed The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to prescribed under Section 84 of the , while appears upon the State is that the learned when without following due process, it It has been further GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.20 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23795 contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, proclamation issued against the petitioner that the proclamation for 25.07.2023 proclaimed petitioner trial Court against the petitioner proclamation, which was issued on petitioner 10. petitioners Section 138 of NI Act, despite service of any summons/warrants, the petitioners have been declared proclaimed persons and pursuant abovementioned order, FIR under Section 174A of IPC has been lodged. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint has already been dismissed in default by virtue of order dated 27.09.2024 11. that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, declaring the petitioner liable to be set aside. 12. abovementioned arguments. He has contended petitioner the pendency of criminal proceedings against 23795-2026 (O&M) 3 contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, proclamation issued against the petitioner that the proclamation for 18.09.2023 was issued by the learned trial Court on 25.07.2023, but on 17.08.2023 the petitioner proclaimed persons. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that in this case, no fresh proclamation was issued by the learned trial Court against the petitioners, and only on the basis of previous proclamation, which was issued on petitioners have been declared proclaimed It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in a complaint filed by complainant ‘Satish Kumar’ Section 138 of NI Act, despite service of any summons/warrants, the petitioners have been declared proclaimed persons and pursuant abovementioned order, FIR under Section 174A of IPC has been lodged. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint has already been dismissed in default by virtue of order dated 27.09.2024. In addition to above, it has also that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, declaring the petitioners to be proclaimed liable to be set aside. The learned State Counsel has abovementioned arguments. He has contended petitioners are the persons, who right from the very the pendency of criminal proceedings against contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, proclamation issued against the petitioners is defective in view of the fact was issued by the learned trial Court on the petitioners were not declared a . It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the no fresh proclamation was issued by the learned and only on the basis of previous proclamation, which was issued on 25.07.2023 for 17.08.2023, proclaimed persons on 18.09.2023. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the in a complaint filed by complainant ‘Satish Kumar’ under Section 138 of NI Act, despite service of any summons/warrants, the petitioners have been declared proclaimed persons and pursuant abovementioned order, FIR under Section 174A of IPC has been lodged. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint has already been dismissed in default by virtue of order dated also been alleged by the petitioner that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, to be proclaimed persons, the impugned order is The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. He has contended that in the present case, the , who right from the very beginning was aware of the pendency of criminal proceedings against them, but opted not to appear contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, fact was issued by the learned trial Court on not declared a . It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the no fresh proclamation was issued by the learned and only on the basis of previous , the It has been further contended by learned counsel for the under Section 138 of NI Act, despite service of any summons/warrants, the to abovementioned order, FIR under Section 174A of IPC has been lodged. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint has already been dismissed in default by virtue of order dated been alleged by the petitioners that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, in , the impugned order is controverted the present case, the beginning was aware of not to appear GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.20 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23795 before the Court and remained absent in view of above the petitioner defect, if any, which might declaring the p 13. 14. not placed order dated warrant issued against the petitioner they were not residing at the given address the Executing Constable before the learned tria available at the given address on which warrants/proclamation was issue Thus, without invoking the provisions under Section 105 CrPC, the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender. 15. offenders 17.08.2023 executing petitioner adjourned for have been issued that without declared the petitioner 16. been prescribed under 23795-2026 (O&M) 4 before the Court and remained absent for long. As per learned State Counsel, in view of above the petitioners cannot draw defect, if any, which might have occurred inadvertently, in the process of declaring the petitioners to be proclaimed The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of the record shows that placed the copy of statement of executing order dated 25.07.2023, passed by the learned warrant issued against the petitioners was received back with the report that they were not residing at the given address the Executing Constable before the learned tria available at the given address on which warrants/proclamation was issue Thus, without invoking the provisions under Section 105 CrPC, the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender. The learned trial Court declared the petitioner on the basis of affixation of proclamation issued for appearance on 17.08.2023, whereas as per laid down procedure, if the statement of executing Constable was recorded on 17.08.2023 petitioners were not declared proclaimed offender adjourned for next date, i.e. for 18.09.2023 have been issued against the petitioners. that without following the abovesaid procedure, declared the petitioners to be a proclaimed person The procedure to be adopted by the been prescribed under Section 82(2) of CrPC for long. As per learned State Counsel, cannot draw any benefit of the technical have occurred inadvertently, in the process of to be proclaimed persons. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of the record shows that although the petitioners have xecuting official on record, but, as per , passed by the learned trial Court, the non-bailable was received back with the report that they were not residing at the given address. Even as per report submitted by the Executing Constable before the learned trial Court, the petitioner was not available at the given address on which warrants/proclamation was issue Thus, without invoking the provisions under Section 105 CrPC, the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender. declared the petitioners to be proclaimed on the basis of affixation of proclamation issued for appearance on , whereas as per laid down procedure, if the statement of 17.08.2023 and on 17.08.2023 not declared proclaimed offenders, and the case was 18.09.2023, a fresh proclamation should . A perusal of record further reveals vesaid procedure, the learned trial Court proclaimed persons. The procedure to be adopted by the Executing Constable, CrPC, Section 82(2) CrPC lays down for long. As per learned State Counsel, technical have occurred inadvertently, in the process of s have but, as per bailable was received back with the report that . Even as per report submitted by l Court, the petitioner was not available at the given address on which warrants/proclamation was issued. Thus, without invoking the provisions under Section 105 CrPC, the to be proclaimed on the basis of affixation of proclamation issued for appearance on , whereas as per laid down procedure, if the statement of the case was , a fresh proclamation should A perusal of record further reveals the learned trial Court Executing Constable, has lays down GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.20 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23795 that following steps are a proclaimed person: 17. it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of abovementioned provisions of Section It has also been held that spirit, the offender/proclaimed person 18. statement of read over at a as prescribed un declaring the petitioner sustainable in the eyes of law. 23795-2026 (O&M) 5 that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a person to be a proclaimed person:- “(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows: (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides; (b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village; (c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court (ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.” With regard to mandatory nature of above it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of abovementioned provisions of Section 82(2) of It has also been held that if the above process is not spirit, the impugned order declaring a person to be a proclaimed offender/proclaimed person, is defective. In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention ement of executing official nowhere depicts that the proclamation was read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C. Thus, declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed person sustainable in the eyes of law. necessary to be taken before declaring a person to be “(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:- (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides; it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village; a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous Court-house; the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.” rd to mandatory nature of abovementioned procedure, it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of (2) of CrPC is mandatory in nature. the above process is not followed in letter and order declaring a person to be a proclaimed In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention here that the where depicts that the proclamation was public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, der Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C. Thus, the impugned order to be a proclaimed person is defective and not necessary to be taken before declaring a person to be (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such mentioned procedure, it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of is mandatory in nature. in letter and order declaring a person to be a proclaimed that the where depicts that the proclamation was public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, impugned order is defective and not GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.20 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-23795 19. 2023(2) Law Herald 1545 issued for appearance of an accused on a fixed date before the Court, and on that date he is not declared proclaimed person, for subsequent date fresh proclamation should be issued. Similar view has been taken in the case ‘Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Another decided on 04.09.2024) and 50704- 2024, decided on 28.11.2024) 20. abovementioned f declaring complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of NI Act has already been dismissed in default, by virtue of order dated dated 18.09.2023 perverse, 21. petition is hereby P-1), for the offence City, District Panipat 22. disposed of Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 23795-2026 (O&M) 6 In this regard in the case of ‘ 2023(2) Law Herald 1545, this Court has issued for appearance of an accused on a fixed date before the Court, and on that date he is not declared proclaimed person, for subsequent date fresh proclamation should be issued. Similar view has been taken in the case Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Another decided on 04.09.2024) and ‘Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab 2024, decided on 28.11.2024). Taking into consideration the cumulative effect abovementioned factors, as there was a defect in declaring the petitioners to be the proclaimed complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of NI Act has already been dismissed in default, by virtue of order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the learned trial Court is defective and unsustainable in the eyes As a sequel to abovementioned observations, the present petition is hereby allowed and FIR No.1440 dated 25.09.2023 (Annexure 1), for the offence under Section 174 City, District Panipat, is hereby quashed, accordingly Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of, accordingly. Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/ ‘Tirlok Chand Vs. State of Haryana has observed that if a proclamation is issued for appearance of an accused on a fixed date before the Court, and on that date he is not declared proclaimed person, for subsequent date fresh proclamation should be issued. Similar view has been taken in the cases of Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Another’ (CRM-M-27944 of 2024, Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab’ (CRM- Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the was a defect in the impugned order, while proclaimed offenders and the fact that complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of NI Act has already been dismissed in default, by virtue of order dated 27.09.2024, the order learned trial Court is hereby held to be sustainable in the eyes of law. As a sequel to abovementioned observations, the present No.1440 dated 25.09.2023 (Annexure under Section 174-A of IPC, Police Station Panipat , accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand :Yes/No : Yes/No Tirlok Chand Vs. State of Haryana’ observed that if a proclamation is issued for appearance of an accused on a fixed date before the Court, and on that date he is not declared proclaimed person, for subsequent date fresh s of 27944 of 2024, -M- of the while and the fact that the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of NI Act has already the order hereby held to be As a sequel to abovementioned observations, the present No.1440 dated 25.09.2023 (Annexure Police Station Panipat Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.20 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document