IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-63475-2025 Date of decision: 12.11.2025 Dinesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present : Mr. Rohit Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL)

1. Petitioner, an accused in criminal case bearing COMA No. 56101 of 2013 dated 05.10.2013 titled ‘Punjab Pollution Control Board vs. M/s Damini Resorts and others’ filed under Sections 41, 43 read with Section 47 of Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974, has prayed for setting aside the order dated 31.10.2019 (Annexure P-12) passed by the learned CJM, Ludhiana vide which he (P) was declared as ‘Absconder’.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid criminal complaint was filed by complainant-respondent No.2 through its Assistant Environmental Engineer, against petitioner, who is Director of M/s Damini Resorts & Builders Pvt. Ltd., alleging therein that M/s Damini Resorts Pvt. Ltd. had started developing a residential colony without obtaining the NOC from the Board. Vide order dated 05.10.2013, learned CJM, Ludhiana summoned petitioner and others as accused to face trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 41, 43 read with Section

47 of Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974.

3. While assailing impugned order dated 31.10.2019 vide which petitioner was declared as ‘Proclaimed Absconder’, two fold submissions have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, that petitioner was not aware of the filing of the complaint. Repeated notices were issued at the incorrect address, so mentioned in the complaint. Registered office of the company, of which petitioner is the Director is as follows:-

“SCO 1, Basant Avenue, Dugri Road, Village Dhandra, Ludhiana.”

The said address is also registered with the Registrar of Companies. But no notices/summons/bailable warrants etc. were ever issued at the aforementioned address.

Secondly, that on 30.09.2019, 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 21.10.2019 (when it was declared to be holiday) and thereafter on 31.10.2019, on which day the petitioner was declared as ‘Absconder’. The subsequent adjournment beyond 30 days, as per settled law cannot be said to be compliance of requisite provisions of Section 82(1) (v) Cr.P.C. Based on these contentions, it has been prayed that the order dated 31.10.2019 be set aside.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel places reliance upon following judgments:-

1. Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another 2013(4)

RCR (Criminal) 550

2. CRM-M-10113-2018 titled as Krishan vs. State of Haryana, decided on 09.03.2018

4. Heard. Documents on record perused.

5. On 05.10.2013, a complaint under Sections 41, 43 read with Section 47 of Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974 was filed by Punjab Pollution Control Board through its Assistant Environment Engineer against M/s Damini Resorts and Builders Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Dinesh Kumar (Petitioner) and Mr. Amit Kumar. The registered office of the company i.e. M/s Damini Resorts and Builders Pvt. Ltd. was mentioned as Project Basant Avenue Extension-I, Adjoining Urban Estate, Phase-II, Dugri Road, Village Dhandara, Dugri Road, Ludhiana. Documents on record as in the registration certificate (Annexure P-13) reveal that company was registered at “SCO 1, Basant Avenue, Dugri Road, Village Dhandra, Ludhiana.” However this address is different than so mentioned in the complaint. Further, the fact that even in the order dated 30.07.2019 (Annexure P-7), it has been recorded that NBWs issued to accused were received back with the report that no firm is existing at the spot, renders support to the submission of petitioner.

Proceeding further, the case was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the complaina