CRM-M-36380-2026(O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (149) CRM-M-36380-2026(O&M) Date of Decision:08.07.2026 JITENDER SINGH … Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Kamal Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1. The present petition has been instituted by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 24.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, whereby the petitioner was declared a Proclaimed Person in complaint case bearing NACT/2442/2023, titled as Surjeet Singh vs. Jitender Singh, instituted on 26.10.2023 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Briefly stated, respondent No.2-complainant instituted the aforesaid complaint bearing NACT/2442/2023 on 26.10.2023 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging dishonour of cheque No. 010894 dated 11.07.2023 for a sum of 2,50,000/- ₹ . The GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.08 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36380-2026(O&M) -:2:- complaint was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sirsa (Annexure P-1|). 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully perused the paper book. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had shifted from his earlier place of residence and, therefore, could not be served with the subsequent processes issued by the learned Trial Court. However, it is not disputed that the petitioner had initially been duly served at the very same address but failed to put in appearance. Thereafter, non-bailable warrants were issued at the said address, whereupon the serving official reported that the house was found locked and that the petitioner had not been residing there for quite some time. In such circumstances, once the petitioner had admittedly been served at the said address and subsequently chose to leave the premises without informing the Court, the validity of the proclamation proceedings cannot be doubted merely on the ground that certain procedural safeguards, as noticed by this Court in Pardeep Kumar vs. State of Haryana, CRM-M-416546-2022, decided on 23.08.2023, were not strictly adhered to by the serving official. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own conduct in avoiding the process of law. 4.1. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the complaint pending before the learned Trial Court, this Court finds no ground to interfere with or quash the impugned order declaring the petitioner a Proclaimed Person. Nevertheless, it shall be open to the petitioner to surrender before the GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.08 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36380-2026(O&M) -:3:- learned Trial Court and move an application for regular bail. In the event such an application is filed, the learned Trial Court shall endeavour to consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, preferably within ‘one week’ from the date of its filing. 5. Consequently, the present petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No further orders are required to be passed in that regard. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 08.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.08 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document