IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH Sandeep Malik ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ….Respondents Date of decision: December 12, 2025 Date of Uploading: December 12, 2025 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Additional AG Haryana.

None for respondent No.2.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), seeking quashing of impugned order dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P-11) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Panipat, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as Proclaimed Person, in a complaint case bearing No.NACT/1524/2022 titled “Vijay Kumar versus Sandeep Malik” arising out of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 along with all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the petitioner had left Panipat way back in 2016-2017 and had started residing permanently in Safidon, District Jind. Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner has also appended his Aadhar Card depicting his residential address as of Safidon, District Jind. Learned counsel has further iterated that cheque in question, which was later dishonored, was issued on behalf of the firm, namely, Shri Shyam Construction Company—the petitioner being resided in Sonepat due to his business dealing. Learned counsel has argued that legal notice was issued on the address of ‘Panipat’ and, thus, the same was never received by the petitioner; accordingly, the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was also filed mentioning the address of the petitioner of ‘Panipat’ and, thus, the summoning order, issued therein, were against never received by the petitioner, but allegedly by his brother, with whom the petitioner is not in talking terms since long due to his family reasons. Learned counsel has argued that summoning order allegedly received by the brother of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of proper service. It is further contended that on 08.07.2024, learned Court below proceeded to issue proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. Learned counsel argues that without complying with the mandatory requirements of Sections 84 of BNSS, the learned Court below, vide impugned order dated 11.11.2024, declared the petitioner a proclaimed person. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable, having been passed in patent violation of the statutory mandate, and is therefore liable to be set aside. Consequently, the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person is unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel, while referring to the reply by way of an affidavit dated 06.08.2025, already on record, has opposed the present petition. While refuting the case set up by the petitioner, detailed arguments have been advanced on merits, contending that the petitioner was served through his brother in respect to issuance of summoning in the complaint case in question, but still, he failed to appear before the Court below. Consequently, it is argued, the petitioner has been rightly declared a proclaimed person vide the impugned order. It has further been submitted that the learned Court below scrupulously adhered to the procedure prescribed under Section 84 of BNSS, and no infirmity or procedural irregularity is discernible from the record. Learned State counsel, thus, contends that the conduct of the petitioner clearly reflects deliberate defiance of the judicial process. Accordingly, di