IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 28.10.2025 Surjit Kumar ....Petitioner V/s M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate for Mr. HPS Ishar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Himendra Pal, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

None for the respondent No.2.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of order dated 06.09.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed person in criminal complaint No.7100 of 2023 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alongwith all consequential proceedings.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person is illegal and unsustainable in law as the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has not been adhered to. It has been further iterated that the ordinary summons issued vide order dated 21.12.2023 were never served yet the Court below erroneously issued bailable warrants for 28.05.2024. According to learned counsel, the said warrants were received unserved but despite specifically recording that the service was not proper, the Court below issued non-bailable warrants for 29.05.2024. Thereafter, when even the non-bailable warrants were received unserved, the Court below vide order dated 18.07.2024 issued proclamation for 12.08.2024 which is apparently less than the mandatory period of 30 days as required under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has further submitted that instead of issuing a fresh proclamation in compliance with the statutory mandate, the Court below merely adjourned the case to 06.09.2024 to complete the period of 30 days and thereafter declared the petitioner as a proclaimed person. According to learned counsel, such a course of action is contrary to the settled position of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 550, wherein it has been categorically held that the proclamation must itself provide a clear notice period of not less than 30 days from the date of its publication and the defect cannot be cured by mere adjournment. It has been further argued that before issuing a proclamation, the Court must have a reason to believe that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrants cannot be executed, which condition is not satisfied in the present case. Learned counsel has prayed that the proclamation dated 18.07.2024 and the consequential impugned order dated 06.09.2024 declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person are procedurally defective, contrary to Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, liable to be quashed alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has iterated that the present petition is misconceived and devoid of merits. Learned counsel has further iterated that the impugned order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person has been rightly passed by the Court below after following due process of law under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. According to learned counsel, despite repeated opportunities, the petitioner willfully avoided appearance before the Court below. Furthermore, ordinary summons and subsequent process, including bailable and non-bailable warrants, were issued on multiple occasions yet the petitioner failed to appear and did not cooperate with the proceedings. Learned counsel has further submitted that the proclamation issued on 18.07.2024 was duly published and affixed in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and ample time was granted to the petitioner to appear before the Court. It has further been pointed out that the learned Court below scrupulously adhered to the p