IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

118 CRM-M-53127-2025 (O & M)

Date of decision: 19.09.2025 Aditya Kumar Mohapatra and another ...Petitioners Versus M/s SRE India, 401, Suncity Arcade, Suncity ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioner.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 10.09.2025, Annexure P-6, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram, vide which application filed by the petitioners to cancel/recall of their non-bailable warrants has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners were summoned in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, vide order dated 18.11.2023, however, the same could not be served upon them for non-depositing of copy of complaint. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 04.11.2024 to procure their presence. Consequently, on account of notices having been served on 10.02.2025, bailable warrants were issued for 14.05.2025, which have been received back unserved, leading to issuance of non-bailable warrants for 09.09.2025 and on that day, proclamation proceedings were initiated against them, which had been challenged by filing an application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C.

which was however wrongly dismissed on 10.09.2025 (Annexure P6). Thus, their absence is neither wilful nor deliberate and they are ready and willing to join the proceedings on or before the next date of hearing which is 12.11.2025 and pray for grant of one opportunity to surrender before the trial Court, even if the same is subject to costs.

3. No order prejudicial to the rights of the respondent is being proposed to be passed by this Court, thus, there is no requirement of effecting service upon it.

4. The very purpose of issuance of warrant of arrest, is to compel and secure the presence of the accused to face trial and establish the rule of law, as also to ensure finalization of the proceedings.

5. The present petition has been filed on 17.09.2025 and warrants have now been issued for 12.11.2025, which reflects the bona fide of the petitioners to join the proceedings.

6. This Court in CRM-M-36490-2022, titled as Major Singh vs. State of Punjab, decided on 15.09.2022, CRM-M-38277-2022, titled as Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, dated 26.08.2022 and CRM-M- 39000-2022, titled as Raghav vs. State of Punjab, decided on

09.09.2022, had set aside the orders of non-bailable warrants.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, judgments referred to hereinabove, the readiness and willingness of the petitioners to surrender and join the proceedings, which was incumbent upon them for the culmination of the same, the present petition deserves to be and is allowed, in the interest of justice, so as to facilitate expediting the trial and for taking it to its logical end.

8. As a consequence of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated

10.09.2025, Annexure P-6, is set aside, subject to surrender by the petitioners before the trial Court on or before 09.10.2025 and payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- (each) to be deposited with Veeranwali Foundation - Nanhi Jaan, Chandigarh, A/c No.134101000271, IFSC Code- ICIC0001341, ICICI Bank, Sector 34, Chandigarh. On furnishing bail/surety bonds, the trial Court shall release them on bail subject to its satisfaction. They are also directed to furnish an undertaking by way of an affidavit that they will appear on each and every date of hearing before the trial Court, unless specifically exempted by the Court. They shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. The trial Court may impose any other condition that it may deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

9. Before parting with this order, it is made abundantly clear that in case the petitioner does not adhere to the aforesaid, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed w