##PAGE1##

CRM-M-16004-2026 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

172 CRM-M-16004-2026 (O&M)

DECIDED ON: 24.03.2026

KULWANT KAUR SANDHU

.....PETITIONER VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

.....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH

Present: Mr. Anshul Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG Punjab.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

The order dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure P-14), hereinafter being

referred to as ‘impugned order’, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Jalandhar, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only, is under challenge in the present petition. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,

hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’ only.

2. By virtue of abovementioned order, the learned trial Court while holding a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, declared the petitioner to be a

proclaimed person.

3. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-16004-2026 (O&M) 2

Section 138 of NI Act and in the abovementioned case due to non- appearance, on various occasions, the non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner. However, the same could not be executed as the

petitioner was not found at home.

4. Subsequently, vide order dated 08.04.2025, the learned trial Court issued a proclamation against the petitioner for 22.05.2025 and the same was ordered to be effected on or before 19.04.2025. On 22.05.2025 proclamation issued against the petitioner was received back duly effected. It was effected on 10.05.2025. On 10.05.2025, it was observed that the statutory period of 30 days had not yet elapsed, and therefore, the case was adjourned to 13.06.2025 for the appearance of petitioner. On 13.06.2025, since the presiding officer was on summer vacations, the case was adjourned to 29.07.2025 for the purpose already fixed, i.e. for appearance of petitioner. Thereafter, by virtue of impugned order dated 29.07.2025, the learned trial Court after recording the statement of executing Constable declared the

petitioner a proclaimed person.

5. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), was not complied with, while

declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person.

6. Notice of motion

7. Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG Punjab appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed

with.

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-16004-2026 (O&M) 3

8. Heard.

9. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process, it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, proclamation issued against the petitioner is defective in view of the fact that the proclamation for 22.05.2025 was issued by the learned trial Court on 08.04.2025 and on 22.05.2025, the petitioner was not declared a proclaimed person. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, no fresh proclamation was issued by the learned trial Court against the petitioner and only on the basis of previous proclamation, which was issued on 08.04.2025, for 22.05.2025, the petitioner has been declared proclaimed person on 29.07.2025. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had already left the address, where she was earlier residing and therefore, she could not come to know

about the pendency