S. No.119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CRM-M-67666 of 2025 Date of Decision:03.12.2025 Pooja Kumar .....Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana and another .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Ms. Yogita Soni, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana.

****

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been instituted under Section 482 Cr.P.C/528 of BNSS, 2023 for setting aside order dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P.3) as well as impugned order dated 22.09.2025 (Annexure P.4) passed by learned JMIC, Gurugram, whereby the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed person in case No.NACT-10976 of 2024 dated 18.05.2024 titled ‘Balkishan Vs. Pooja Kumar’, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Upon notice, the State Counsel has appeared. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and material placed on the file has been perused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has been wrongly declared as a proclaimed person. She never received any summons from the trial Court and serious efforts were not made by the trial Court to secure his presence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was granted bail and was regularly appearing before the trial Court but on 01.03.2025, she could not appear and the ld. JMIC, Gurugram has cancelled his bail and forfeited the bonds to State and ordered to summon him through non-bailable warrants for 27.05.2025. As such, instead of cancelling the bail on account of his non- appearance, the Court could have issued notice or bailable warrants to secure his presence instead of passing the punitive order of cancellation of bail or could have adjourned the complaint. Moreover, bail could have been cancelled and arrest warrants could have been issued only after recording a satisfaction that accused has wilfully absented with cogent reasons reflecting the necessity of such a stringent course. Thereafter, on 27.05.2025, non bailable warrants issued against her was received back unexecuted and by simply recording that the Court is satisfied that presence of accused cannot be secured through ordinary process and her presence be secured through proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C for 29.09.2025 and serving constable was summoned to make statement on 26.08.2025. Warrant of arrest issued against the accused was received back unexecuted but the reasons as to why the same have not been executed is not mentioned in the order. After that, Court recorded its satisfaction that the accused cannot be served through non-bailable warrants and ordered issuance of proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. However, no satisfaction was recorded by the trial Magistrate that accused has either absconded or is concealing herself to evade the warrants and that she cannot be served in ordinary manner and without recording satisfaction to this effect, the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C.

could not have been initiated against the accused.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the proclamation was ordered to be issued for 29.09.2025 vide order dated 27.05.2025 but on 22.09.2025, petitioner was declared a Proclaimed Person. Learned counsel contended that no proclamation had been issued against the accused for 22.09.2025 and as such, she did not have any knowledge that she was required to appear before the Court on 22.09.2025 and impugned order dated 22.09.2025, vide which she has been declared Proclaimed Person is thus illegal and nonest.

5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has argued that the petitioner could not be served when his non-bailable warrants were issued and thereafter, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be issued and she was declared Proclaimed Person. Learned State Counsel has contended that the impugned orders are well reasoned and speaking and does not call for any interference and petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Before proceeding furth