##PAGE1##

CRM-M-63681-2023 1 CRM-M-63684-2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

249 Date of decision: 02.04.2026

1. CRM-M-63681-2023 2. CRM-M-63684-2023

GURVINDER SINGH V/S UT CHANDIGARH AND ANR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Samir Rathour, Addl. PP, UT Chandigarh.

Ms. Isha Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.2. (through VC)

*****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer made in the present petitions for quashing the impugned order dated 12.09.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh, in complaint cases No.NACT-4729 and 4730/2022 dated 30.07.2022 filed under Section 138 of NI Act, vide which the petitioner was

declared as proclaimed person.

2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner did not receive summons in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on account of the fact that the petitioner had shifted his place of business to Property No.2053/18 Dr. Ambedkaar Nagar Near Mohall Fatehganj Ludhiana, Annexures P4 to P8 while in the complaint, his previous address was mentioned. Thus, the procedure prescribed under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has not been complied with in letter and spirit. 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.

ASHOK KUMAR

2026.04.02 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-63681-2023 2 CRM-M-63684-2023

3. Learned counsel for the UT Chandigarh submits that the order passed against the petitioner is legal and valid on account of the fact that he had

absented from the proceedings before the trial Court without any just cause

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that she has no

objection to setting aside the impugned order.

5. Heard.

6. In Gurbir Singh Mundi vs. State of Punjab and another, CRM- M-49283-2021, decided on 16.12.2021, it was held that provisions of Section 82(2) Cr.PC. are to be mandatorily complied with cumulatively and not alternatively. The Court had quashed the order declaring the petitioner therein as proclaimed person on the ground that declaration was not read publicly in some conspicuous place of town or village, in which the accused ordinarily

resides.

7. In Sonu Vs. State of Haryana 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 319, it was held that any non-compliance in the procedure prescribed in declaring a proclaimed person, cannot be treated as an irregularity but the same renders

such proceedings a nullity.

8. In the case of Satish Chouhan vs. State of Punjab & Anr., CRM- M-3795-2023, decided on 10.02.2023, this Court held that where the accused had already sold his house long before the process was issued and had shifted elsewhere, the proclamation served at the old address could not be treated as due service, and the mandatory provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. were not complied with. On those facts, the order declaring the petitioner therein as a

proclaimed offender was quashed.

9. The very purpose of initiation of proclamation proceedings, is to

ASHOK KUMAR

2026.04.02 18:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-63681-2023 3 CRM-M-63684-2023

compel and secure the presence of the accused to face trial and establish the rule

of law, as also to ensure finalization of the proceedings.

10. Considering the fact that the absence of the petitioner was not wilful or deliberate and their readiness and willingness to surrender and join the proceedings, in case one opportunity is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice shall be caused to any of the parties, rather his joining the proceedings would help in expediting the trial. This Court in light of the judgment referred to above being applicable to the instant case, finds that the ends of justice would be

adequately met if the present petitions are allowed.

11. In view of the afore-mentioned judgments and the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 12.09.2