The Court emphasized the importance of mandatory compliance with procedural requirements for proclamation proceedings and considered bonafide reasons for non-appearance, as well as the impact of amicable settlements on the case.

JUDGMENT

Aman Chaudhary, J. - Present petition has been filed for setting aside/quashing of entire proclamation proceedings initiated against the petitioner including the issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest issued vide order dated 03.03.2021 and order dated 22.04.2022 directing issuance of proclamation against the petitioner passed by learned Special Judge, Jalandhar in case SC/17/2017 titled as Surjit @ Bholi Vs. Sudha Chopra and others.

2. Learned counsel contends that the complaint dated 29.01.2014 was filed against the petitioner and some other persons, Annexure P-1, wherein he was summoned by the trial Court vide order dated 12.02.2016, Annexure P-2. This Court vide order dated 27.06.2016 granted him anticipatory bail with a direction to appear before the trial Court. After having appeared he was admitted to bail, consequent thereto this Court vide order dated 31.07.2017 made the interim order absolute and disposed of the petition.

3. Learned counsel further contends that charges were framed against the petitioner vide order dated 17.01.2017, whereafter he continued to appear before the trial Court and contested his case tooth and nail. It is when the case was adjourned due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner belonging to poor family having no source of income, with a view to find a source of income to sustain his family, went to Moscow as a labourer in April 2020 from where he left for Spain. It is submitted by the learned counsel while referring to averments made in para 7 and 8 of the petition that the passport of the petitioner was taken by his employer in Spain so that he cannot flee the said country. It was due to the aforesaid fact that petitioner was unable to come to India to attend the Court proceedings. It was only on the intervention of NGO in Spain that the petitioner was able to recover his passport from his employer and with their help came back to India on 22.09.2022. However, on reaching the Airport at New Delhi, his passport was found tampered having annexed fake pages by his employer in Spain, which was not in the knowledge of the petitioner, consequently, FIR No.405 dated 22.09.2022 under Section 420, 468, 471 IPC read with Section 12 of the Passport Act was registered at Police Station IGI Airport New Delhi, wherein he was arrested and granted bail on 24.09.2022 and thereafter he returned to his hometown Jalandhar. It is thereafter that he became aware that non-bailable warrants had been issued in his absence by the trial Court vide order dated 03.03.2021 (Annexure P-7). Non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner vide orders Annexures P-7 and P-8. Vide order dated 22.04.2022, Annexure P-4 proclamation proceedings were directed to be initiated against the petitioner and it is stated that fresh proclamation proceedings be initiated vide order dated 23.09.2022 for 24.09.2022, wherein proclamation warrants had not been received back with any report. Learned counsel submits that on 29.10.2022, the case has now been adjourned to 23.11.2022 for recording of statement of serving official who affixed the proclamation. It is his further submission that during the interregnum the compromise dated 14.10.2022, Annexure P-11 has also been entered into between the parties, with the intervention of respectables of the area. He submits that in pursuance thereto petition for quashing of complaint based on compromise is also being filed.

4. Learned counsel submits that non-appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court in the proceedings is neither willful nor deliberate but for reasons aforesaid. He prays for one opportunity to be granted to him to appear and surrender before the trial Court. To buttress his submission, he places reliance on the judgments of Coordinate Benches of this Court in Gurbir Singh Mundi vs. State of Punjab and another CRM-M-49283-2021, decided on 16.12.2021, Hardev Kaur vs. State of Punjab 2018(2) Law Herald 1256 and Jasbir Kaur vs. State of Punjab and anoth