130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.01.2025 Ranjeev Aggarwal @ Sanjeev Aggarwal ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pankaj Midha, Addl.A.G., Haryana.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of order dated 16.11.2015 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Karnal in a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short ‘the Act’) whereby, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person along with FIR No.0134 dated 29.09.2019 under Section 174-A of IPC registered at Police Station Sector 32-33, Karnal, District Karnal (Annexure P-

3) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not aware about the complaint filed by the complainant and the summons of the said complaint were never served upon the petitioner, therefore, he could not appear before the learned trial Court. He further contends that on account of his non-appearance, the trial Court declared the petitioner as proclaimed person vide order dated 16.11.2015 (Annexure P-2)

and the intimation was further sent to SHO concerned to facilitate him to lodge an FIR against the proclaimed person for commission of offence under Section 174-A IPC and consequently, FIR No.0134 dated 29.09.2019 under Section 174-A of IPC was registered at Police Station Sector 32-33, Karnal, District Karnal against him. Aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 16.11.2015 (Annexure P-2) as well as the said FIR, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the mandate of Section 82 Cr.P.C. has not been followed in its letter and spirit by the trial Court and the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person on 16.11.2015. In support of his arguments, counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in Sonu vs. State of Haryana 2021 (1) RCR (Cri.) 319 and the judgment passed by the Gujarat High Court in Govindbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 830. He further submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the complaint filed by the complainant has been dismissed as withdrawn by the learned trial Court vide order dated 15.09.2022 (Annexure P-6).

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Pankaj Midha, Addl.A.G., Haryana who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and supports the order passed by the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put in appearance before the trial Court intentionally and deliberately and, therefore, having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure his presence.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance and with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

7. While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain a healthy balance between personal liberty of the individual-accused and interests of the society in promoting law and order. Such procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.

8. This Court in the judgment passed in Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406; 2023 (2) Law Herald 1506 has held that the Court is first required to record its satisfaction before issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. an