IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-62026-2025 Date of decision: 06.11.2025 Kuldeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present : Mr. Munish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL)

1. Petitioner, an accused in criminal case bearing COMA No. 203 of 2021 dated 20.05.2021 titled ‘Inderjit Singh vs. Kuldeep Singh’ filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has prayed for setting aside the order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-13) passed by the learned SDJM, Nabha, District Patiala vide which he (P) was declared a ‘Proclaimed Offender’.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid criminal complaint was filed by complainant-respondent No.2 against petitioner, alleging therein that cheque issued by petitioner in favour of complainant of Rs.2 lakhs was dishonoured. Vide order dated 03.11.2022, learned SDJM summoned petitioner as an accused to face trial for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. Thereafter, petitioner had appeared before the learned trial Court on 30.08.2024, furnished his bail bonds and surety bonds and was released on bail. Since the matter was likely to be settled between the parties, the case was referred to the National Lok Adalat for settlement. However, the matter could not be settled between the parties and was sent back to the concerned Court for recording evidence. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for

10.03.2025, on which day, the case was not taken up and it was listed on 19.05.2025. On the said day i.e. on 19.05.2025, petitioner could not appear as the case was to be taken up on 10.03.2025. Moreover, next date of hearing was not communicated to him (P). Resultantly on 19.05.2025, his (P) bail bonds and surety bonds were cancelled and forfeited to State. His presence was ordered to be procured through non-bailable warrants for 28.05.2025. Vide order dated 28.05.2025 (Annexure P-10), learned trial Court after receiving the report, arrived at a conclusion that petitioner has deliberately absconded and concealed himself from execution of warrants and thus, sought to procure his presence by resorting to provisions under Section 82 Cr.P.C. It was further directed that a proclamation be published and accused put in appearance before the Court on 09.06.2025. On the said day, i.e. 09.06.2025, fresh proclamation was issued for 05.07.2025. On 05.07.2025, since the time period of 30 days had not lapsed, the case was adjourned to 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-13). Finally, on 28.07.2025, petitioner was declared as ‘Proclaimed Person’.

3. Two unfold submissions have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, that the case was not taken up on 10.03.2025 when it was listed. The next date of hearing i.e. 19.05.2025 was not intimated to petitioner. Thus, his absence on 19.05.2025 was not intentional but was on account of reason mentioned hereinabove.

Secondly, that on 05.07.2025, the Court was conscious of the fact that since the statutory period of 30 days from the publication of proclamation and appearance of the accused had not lapsed, therefore, the case was adjourned to 28.07.2025, on which day the petitioner was declared as ‘Proclaimed Offender’. Based on these contentions, it has been prayed that the order dated 28.07.2025 be set aside.

Learned counsel further contended that petitioner is still ready and willing to amicably settle the financial dispute between the parties.

4. Heard. Documents on record perused.

5. At the outset, it needs to be pointed that though on one occasion the case was adjourned to 10.03.2025, but surprisingly enough there is no interim order of the said day. Rather, it appears that the case was taken up for 19.05.2025. Thus, this date was obviously not in the knowledge of petitioner.

Still further, it also needs to be ascertained as to whether the procedural requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. were com