IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 07.02.2025 VIVEK GAUR AND ANR ....Petitioner(s)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ....Respondent(s)

-.-

Present: Mr. Mukul Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

****

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 order dated 15.06.2023 (Annexure P-1), whereby petitioners were declared proclaimed persons in the proceedings emanating from complaint case No. NACT 25875 of 2018, dated 31.07.2018.

2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that proceedings before the Court of learned trial Court (JMFC, Gurugram) are in regard to the bouncing of cheque amounting to Rs.5 lakhs, against the petitioners, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Complaint was instituted in the year 2018 and summoning order was passed on 10.03.2022 (Annexure P-5). Thereafter, petitioners (accused Nos. 2 and 3) had appeared before the Court through counsel, and the applications for exemption from their personal appearance were allowed for 15.09.2022 and also on 29.05.2023, to enable them to appear personally before the Court.

Counsel submits that though petitioners had already appeared through their counsel before the learned trial Court since 15.09.2022, however, on account of their absence, non-bailable warrants were issued and subsequently, application for seeking exemption from appearance was also dismissed. Subsequent thereto, process for issuance of proclamation was started and petitioners were declared as proclaimed persons, vide order dated 15.06.2023 (Annexure P-1).

Counsel further submits that the business of the petitioners’

company is in losses and there are several other hardships being faced by them and the insolvency proceedings are also pending before the NCLT, since the year 2019.

Further submits that in case one opportunity is granted for releasing the petitioners on bail, by protecting them from arrest, the petitioners undertake that they would not absent themselves in future, without there being prior permission from the Court, and fully cooperate for early disposal of the trial, failing which they are ready to face the consequences.

Also prays that the petitioners be released on bail at the time of their surrender before the Trial Court.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Learned State counsel puts an appearance, and opposes the request of the petitioners by submitting that petitioners do not deserve any sympathy, because they have misused the concession granted by the Court. Learned State counsel further submits that looking at their behaviour, there is no surety that in future, petitioners would not be absent for the purpose of delaying the trial.

5. In number of cases, this Court has considered similar plea of appearance, expressed at the instance of the accused, who failed to appear before the Court at appropriate time, and observed that:

“paramount consideration of the Court is to secure presence of accused on each and every date for speeding up the trial for its final conclusion. Already Courts are flooded with so much litigation, resulting in slow pace of work, because of more than one reason. The required energy and manpower be used for expediting the proceedings of the Court, instead of running after the accused persons to get hold of them.”

[see: Ashish Kumar Honda @ Ashish Handa v. State of Punjab, Law Finder Doc Id # 2038111; and Veena @ Veena Devi v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-

2206-2025, decided on 16.01.2025]

6. I have considered the submissions of both the sides and examined the relevant material available on record. The petitioners have remiss in appearing before the Court only on one date i.e. on 15.06.2023 when they have been declared as proclaimed persons. It also cannot be left unnoticed that on coming to know about passing of the impugned order, the petitioners have moved the present petition, showing their inclination to submit t