201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-32892-2024(O&M) Date of Decision: 07.03.2025 PRATEEK RAO ... Petitioner Versus M/S A.K.J. PROPERTIES PVT LTD ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY. Present:- Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL)

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record receipt qua payment of the cost as imposed vide order dated 12.07.2024, the same is taken on record.

2. The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 30.05.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Gurugram, whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in case No. NACT/75438/2023 titled as “M/S A K J Properties Pvt Ltd Vs. M/S Ninaniya Estates Ltd Etc.”.

3. Arguments heard.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner after being summoned in the aforesaid complaint case had been granted concession of bail and was appearing in the learned trial court without any fail. He submits that petitioner moved an application for exemption on 07.10.2023, which was allowed, and on the next date i.e. 04.11.2023 he moved another application for exemption on account of certain unavoidable circumstances, but the same was declined and his bail was cancelled, besides being directed to serve through warrants of arrest for 18.12.2023. He submits that the absence of the petitioner was on account of he being suffering from fever and had even attached the medical certificate in this regard, despite that his bail was cancelled. He contends that petitioner was never served with the non-bailable warrants and simply on the basis of the report on the warrant that one person namely Vijay has been informed about the impending warrant, the learned trial Court presumed the appropriate service to have been made and proceeded to issue proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C vide order dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-4) which is manifestly wrong, as there is nothing on record as to who was that Vijay, his parentage is not mentioned, nor is mentioned as to how he is related to the petitioner and the learned trial Court fell in error in issuing the proclamation against the petitioner and subsequently declared him proclaimed person in the case vide impugned order dated 30.05.2024 (Annexure P-6) without following the due procedure under Section 82 Cr.P.C. He submits that petitioner was declared as proclaimed person on 30.05.2024 and it is evident from order dated 31.05.2024 (Annexure P-7) that the petitioner had surrendered in the Court on the very next day and was granted concession of bail, hence prayed for quashing of the impugned order date 30.05.2024 (Annexure P-6).

5. Notice was issued to the respondent but the same was not served. The issuance of notice to respondent is exempted at this stage.

6. The perusal of record in the light of the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner manifestly shows that the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate for issuance of proclamation on the basis of report submitted on the warrant qua the same having been brought to the notice of “one Vijay” is without any basis. The learned Magistrate failed to take note that the warrants were not duly executed. Subsequently, when there was no mention of the parentage or address or for that matter any relationship with the petitioner, how could the Magistrate presume that it was in the knowledge of the petitioner that the warrants have been issued and on what basis, he formed opinion regarding the issuance of proclamation necessitated for the service of the petitioner, is also hopelessly missing in the impugned order. The petitioner had moved an application for exemption on medical grounds accompanied with medical certificate which has although been declined but the Magistrate should not have acted in haste in doing so and straight away jumped to issuance of proclamation with