IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Decided on : 13.01.2026

Gagandeep Singh . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

UT Chandigarh and another . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

PRESENT: Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate and

Ms. Shivaly Singla, Advocate

for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Virat Rana, Addl. PP, UT Chandigarh.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

1. Instant petition, under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 482 Cr.P.C.), has been filed for quashing of the impugned order dated 16.12.2024 (Annexure P-7), passed by learned JMIC, Chandigarh,whereby the petitioner has been declared as ‘proclaimed person’, on account of his non-appearance in Criminal Complaint Case No.NACT- 4881 of 2024, dated 29.04.2024, titled as, “M/s Cyber Defence Intelligence Consulting LLP v. Gagandeep Singh”, u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, ‘NI Act’). Besides, a prayer has also been made for

staying the operation of impugned order dated 16.12.2024 (P-7).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Criminal Complaint bearing No. NACT-4881 of 2024, instituted at the instance of respondent No.2, was entertained and learned JMIC, Chandigarh, issued the summoning order, but due to non-service of notice at his correct address, he could not appear before the learned trial Court, as the complainant had

mentioned an incomplete address, resulting in non-receipt of summons by the petitioner.

It is further submitted that the trial Court, without ensuring proper service of summons or complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C., proceeded to declare the petitioner as a ‘proclaimed person’ vide impugned order dated 16.12.2024 (P-7). The said order, it is contended, was passed in undue haste without recording any statement of the serving officer or verifying whether the proclamation had been effected in the manner prescribed under law.

3. Learned counsel further submits that now the petitioner has come to know about the impugned order dated 16.12.2024 (P-7), passed by the learned JMIC, Chandigarh, whereby he has been declared as a ‘proclaimed person’. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed in a wholly erroneous and illegal manner and without compliance with the provisions of Section 84 of BNSS, 2023.

Further submits that immediately upon coming to know of his having been declared a ‘proclaimed person’, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present petition. Thus, learned counsel submits that in case one opportunity is granted by protecting the petitioner from arrest and permitting him to be released on bail upon surrender, he undertakes not to absent herself in future without prior permission of the Court and shall fully cooperate for early disposal of the trial.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Learned Addl. PP, UT Chandigarh puts an appearance, and opposes the request of the petitioner by submitting that petitioner does not deserve any sympathy, because, he knowingly evade the proceedings before the trial Court. Learned State counsel further submits that looking at his behaviour, there is no surety that in future, petitioner would not be absent for the purpose of delaying the trial.

6. In number of cases, wherein, accused stopped appearing in criminal cases, the Courts are compelled to declare accused as ‘Proclaimed Person/Proclaimed Offender’. After examining the facts, this Court has formulated a uniform method to ensure the presence of accused before the concerned Court, to enable it to proceed further instead of delaying the proceedings by awaiting the presence of accused.

Intentional or unintentional default of the accused can be dealt with by examining the facts from case to case involved, and where it is realised that absence or prolonged absence of such accused is intentional to evade the process of law, he/she can be penalized examining the nature of crime in which he is facing the proceedings and thereupon by imposing some cost amount subject to his/her capacity to pay.

Primary ob