116 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 21.02.2025 BHARAT BHUSHAN ...PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Kinshuk Nanda, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

CRM-7443-2025

1. Present application has been filed under section 528 BNSS, 2023 for replacing the wrongly attached order dated 03.12.2024 as Annexure P-2 with the correct order dated 17.02.2023 as Annexure P-2 and placing the same on record.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner submits that inadvertently, while filing the instant petition, wrong order has been annexed as Annexure P-2 that was passed in some other case, whereas, the correct order is being placed on record as Annexure P-2, along with the present application for replacing the wrong order. He further submits that the aforementioned mistake was unintentional.

3. In view of the afore-stated submissions, present application is allowed.

4. Impugned order dated 17.02.2023 is taken on record as Annexure P-2 and is ordered to be replaced with the wrong order.

MAIN CASE

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No.0208 dated 22.08.2024 registered under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station Navi Baradari, District Jalandhar arising out of case bearing No.NACT/9251/2022 dated 06.04.2022 registered under Section 138 NI Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar and all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed against the petitioner and co-accused, wherein the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person vide order dated 17.02.2023 (Annexure P-2).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 has given a wrong address of the petitioner as ‘House No.146, Beant Nagar, Tehsil and District Jalandhar (Punjab)’ whereas, the petitioner is resident of ‘House No.108, Beant Nagar, Tehsil and District Jalandhar (Punjab)’. He refers to the Aadhar Card attached with the instant petition and submits that the petitioner was never served and he was declared proclaimed person without following the drill of Section 82 Cr.P.C. He further submits that while passing the impugned order on 17.02.2023, the petitioner was declared proclaimed person, however, there is no direction by the jurisdictional Court for registration of the FIR (supra) against the petitioner under Section 174-A IPC. Further, the mandatory drill of Section 195 Cr.P.C. has also not been followed in its letter and spirit by the trial Court. 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.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-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, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

7. Section 174-A of the IPC was introduced through the Amendment Act of 2005, and a corresponding amendment was made to Schedule 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), classifying this provision as a cognizable offence. However, no corresponding amendment was made to Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. to exclude Section 174-A IPC from its scope. The proposition that Section 174-A IPC is governed by the procedure as laid out in Section 195 Cr.P.C. is further supp