JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.

Prayer by way of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C is to quash FIR No.203 dated 7.08.2019 registered under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran and all the subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. It is contended that Tarn Taran Primary Cooperative Agriculture Development Bank Limited, Branch Tarn Taran had instituted a criminal complaint to prosecute the accused (petitioner) under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with the averments that the petitioner had taken loan by mortgaging his landed property but defaulted in making payment on installments. Cheque issued by the petitioner in discharge of his outstanding dues was dishonored on presentation. Petitioner failed to make the payment despite notice. Complaint was filed.

3. It is contended that no summons were received by the petitioner at any point of time. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran by wrongly observing that petitioner was avoiding to receive summons or was avoiding to be served through warrants of arrest, issued proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Though no proclamation had been issued for 22.10.2018, petitioner was declared proclaimed person on account of the proclamation having been issued for 05.10.2018. On direction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran, present FIR under Section 174-A IPC was registered.

4. Petitioner contends further that on coming to know about the pendency of the complaint, he put in appearance before the court and was allowed bail. Later on, he cleared the pending loan amount along with interest to the complainant- Bank. Complaint was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.01.2020 (Annexure P3) and the petitioner stood acquitted. Petitioner submits that as compliance of Section 82 Cr.P.C was not made as per law and the fact that main complaint in which petitioner was declared proclaimed offender has already been withdrawn, therefore, the FIR in question and consequent proceedings deserve to be quashed.

5. Learned State Counsel has not disputed the factual position but submits that petitioner is liable to be proceeded criminally, as he did not deliberately appear before the Court.

6. I have considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the paper book.

7. As per order dated 19.07.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran in the complaint case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, notice issued to the accused was received with the report that he was trying to avoid the service of summons and so his presence was directed to be secured through warrants of arrest returnable by 28.08.2018. It was noticed in the order dated 28.08.2018 that warrants of arrest was received back with the report that accused was trying to avoid the service. By recording satisfaction that presence of petitioner cannot be procured in ordinary manner as he was trying to avoid appearance, proclamation under Section 82 Cr. P.C was directed to be issued, returnable by 05.10.2018. It is revealed further that on 05.10.2018, proclamation was received back duly executed but it was noticed that period of 30 days had not elapsed and so matter was adjourned to 21.10.2018 for presence of the accused-petitioner. Since 21.10.2018 was a Sunday, so file was taken up on 22.10.2018 and despite the fact that there was no proclamation for appearance/surrender of accused-petitioner for 22.10.2018, he was