IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39413-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.11.2025 Puneet ....Petitioner Versus Maa Chinmastika Enterprises and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. Ravi Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer made in the present petition for quashing the order dated 08.02.2023, Annexure P11, vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in Complaint bearing CIS No. NACT/4019/2020 titled as ‘Maa Chinmastika Enterprises vs. Satyug India etc.’

2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was summoned in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, vide order dated 12.01.2021 and released on bail on 17.05.2021. Thereafter, he was continuously appearing before the trial Court but for 30.03.2022, as his counsel had wrongly conveyed him the next date of hearing i.e. 30.08.2022, whereupon his bail was cancelled and bail bonds/surety bonds were forfeited to the State, leading to issuance of non-bailable warrants. Whereafter, on 02.09.2022, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued and the same was duly effected on 28.12.2022, wherein it was stated that period of 30 days has not expired. Thus, the procedure mandated under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had not been followed, as the petitioner was declared proclaimed person without affording him the pre-requisite time period of 30 days to appear before the trial Court. He is ready and willing to join the proceedings and prays that one last opportunity may be granted to him to surrender before the trial Court. To buttress the submissions, reliance is placed upon judgments in the cases of CRM-M-29878-2022, Sardar Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and another, decided on 30.08.2022, Uttam Sharma vs. State of Punjab and another, CRM-M-31481-2021, dated 29.09.2021 and Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another, CRM-M-13638-2013, decided on 05.08.2013.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG, Punjab, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and submits that the petitioner has rightly been declared proclaimed person for having absented.

5. No order prejudicial to the rights of the private respondent is being proposed to be passed by this Court, thus, there is no requirement of effecting service upon respondent No.1.

6. Heard.

7. It is apposite to refer to the provisions of Section 82 (1) Cr.P.C.

which reads thus:-

“82. Proclamation for person absconding. -

(1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.

(2) xx xx xx xx (3) xx xx xx xx.”

8. In the present case, proclamation was issued on 01.12.2022 and thereafter, affixation of the notice was made on 28.12.2022, whereby he was directed to appear before the Court on 20.01.2023. Since, the mandatory period of 30 days to appear before the Court had not elapsed, the case stood adjourned to 08.02.2023, for the period to be completed, which is in teeth of the law laid down in that regard. A gainful reference can be made to the judgment in Ashok Kumar (supra), relevant para of which reads thus:

“A copy of the proclamation was also affixed at conspicuous part of the Court house, which means that the publication was effected on 9.2.2013 for 6.3.2013, which shows that after the publication of the notice, the accused was not given the mandatory period of 30 days to appear before the Court. The mere fact that the Court adjourned it after the period of 30 days will not be treated as compliance of the provisions of Section 82 (1) Cr.P.C.”

9. The aforesaid judgment was relied upon in Uttam Sharma (supra), wherein the order of proclama