JUDGMENT

Manoj Bajaj, J. - Petitioner-Sarabjit Singh (proclaimed offender) has filed this petition to challenge the orders dated 10.02.2011 and 09.03.2012 (Annexures P-2 and P-3, respectively), whereby the trial Court proceeded to issue non-bailable warrants against him to secure his presence and later on declared him proclaimed offender in case FIR No.172 dated 19.04.2010 under Sections 420 and 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar, District Amritsar City.

2. The facts in brief leading to the petition are that on the basis of application of Harbhajan Singh (respondent No.2), the above FIR was registered. The allegations as noticed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar in the order dated 08.05.2017 are as under:

"Criminal law was set into motion on the application bearing 389/PC/SSP dated 28.12.2009 moved to SSP, District Amritsar by complainant Harbhajan Singh to the effect that he is resident of Village Chanan Ke, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar and working as employee in Telephone Exchange Department. Accused Sukhwinder Kaur w/o Late Sh. Bakshish Singh came to his office in order to correct the St Vs. Sukhwinder Kaur Pg no. 2 telephone bill 2-3 times due to which they got in contact with each other. Accused Sukhwinder Kaur told him that if somebody want to go abroad then she can sent him abroad with minimum cost. In the month of January 2002, accused told him that she can send complainant son abroad and the deal for sending abroad was struck for a sum ofRs.10 Lac. Complainant got induced from the wordings of accused and agreed to send his son abroad. On 06.02.2002, complainant handed over a sum of Rs. 1 Lac to Sukhwinder Kaur and his son Sarabjit Singh in his office. As an assurance, accused Sukhwinder Kaur issued a post dated cheque bearing no. 20717 and on 12.06.2002, Sarabjit Singh also gave affidavit to that effect. Complainant later on came to know that Sarabjit Singh forged the signature of his mother on the affidavit. On 03.11.2002, Sarabjit Singh came to his office and complainant handed over a sum of Rs.2,500,00/-in the presence of witnesses and as security, accused give two cheques bearing no.1227921 and 1227923. In the month of December 2003, both the accused came to the office of complainant and asked him that papers works have been done and demanded more Rs.2 Lac. On 08.01.2004 after arranged the money, complainant called accused to his office and handed over Rs.2 Lac. Accused as assurance have given one more cheque bearing no. 20718 and 20719 as security. On 27.09.2005, accused also taken more Rs. 1,70,000/- from the complainant more and gave him an assurance that they will arrange a visa for England for complainant son. Thereafter both the accused kept on prolonging the matter on one pretext or other. Thereafter accused demanded security cheques from the complainantand asked the complainant that she will return the whole amount to the St Vs. Sukhwinder Kaur Pg no. 3 complainant upon which complainant returned the security cheques. Accused in return had given a cheque bearing no.20720 of Rs.7,20,000/- to the complainant. Accused did not sent his son abroad nor she returned the money. Thereafter complainant lodged a complaint filed u/s 138 of N.I. Act against accused Sukhwinder Kaur due to which a compromise was effected between complainant and accused in the presence of witnesses. As per compromise, accused gave a cheque of Rs.50,000/- of Bank of Baroda and assured the complainant that remaining payment will be made in installments. Thereafter when complainant asked the accused to return the money then accused assured the complainant that they will send the son of complainant and his daughter-in-law abroad on couple visa. Thereafter complainant withdraw his complaint. However accused neither sent his son and daughter-in-law abroad nor returned the money to the complainant."

3. During the pendency of the case, the petitioner went abroad and the effort