IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.01.2025 Nardeep Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Union Territory and another … Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT Present : Mr. Arun K. Kaunal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. J.S. Toor, Addl. P.P., U.T., Chandigarh.

Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate and Mr. Arpinder S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.2-complainant.

N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 17.09.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Chandigarh, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender in a case arising out of the FIR No. 126 dated 23.04.2008 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC registered at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a FIR No. 126 dated 23.04.2008 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1) was registered against the petitioner at the instance of respondent No. 2/complainant, who had alleged that while he was crossing the road divider of Sectors 51 and 52 Chandigarh on foot, he was hit by the motorcycle driven by the present petitioner, in a rash and negligent manner. The petitioner was arrested in the case and was granted the concession of bail. Thereafter, both the parties had entered into a compromise and the petitioner was under a bonafide belief that the entire legal proceedings had come to an end on the basis of the compromise between the parties. Under the misconceived belief, the petitioner left India on 03.07.2008 and went to Australia to pursue his further studies. Later on, even, the compromise was reduced into writing between the father of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 also. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that rather the trial Court issued non-bailable warrants against the present petitioner, however, the petitioner was never served as he was abroad. Even no steps were taken by the complainant/prosecution to serve the petitioner through the Embassy in Australia. Ultimately, vide order dated 14.11.2008, the Court observed that the petitioner may be served by issuing proclamation under Section 82/83 of Cr.P.C, against accused for 05.01.2009. In pursuance to the order dated 14.11.2008, the proclamation notice for the appearance of the petitioner was issued on 26.11.2008. Learned counsel further contends that in fact on 05.01.2009, it was holiday and the case was taken up on 06.01.2009. The trial Court observed that the proclamation was published on 12.12.2008 and since the statutory period of 30 days had not expired from the date of publication of proclamation, the case was adjourned to 12.01.2009 for completion of period of 30 days and for awaiting the presence of the accused, i.e., the petitioner. Ultimately, the matter was taken up on 10.01.2009, instead of 12.01.2009 as the Presiding Officer of the Court had to go out of station for some official work and the case was adjourned to 17.01.2009 for the purpose already fixed. Ultimately, vide the impugned order dated 17.01.2009, the trial Court declared the petitioner as proclaimed offender. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that vide order dated 14.11.2008, the proclamation was issued for the appearance of the petitioner on 05.01.2009. The proclamation was published on 12.12.2008 and the statutory period of 30 days had not expired on 06.01.2009. Consequently, the case was adjourned to 12.01.2009 and 17.01.2009. However, such adjournments do not fulfill the requirement of 30 days as provided under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant had vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had intentionally not appeared before the trial Court for sev