JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of complaint case No.188/11 dated 01.05.2008 (Annexure P-1) titled as “Ramesh Chander Khanna Vs. Nidhi Kakkar & others” registered under Section 500 IPC, the summoning order dated 03.12.2009 (Annexure P-2) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

The brief facts of the case are that Ramesh Chander Khanna/complainant-respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent No.2) filed a complaint stating that he had been falsely implicated and consequently defamed in FIR No.215 dated 17.08.2005 U/s 406, 498-A IPC, P.S. Nawanshahr at the instance of Nidhi Kakkar, the wife of his near relative in which he was subsequently discharged. Based on the preliminary evidence led, the accused persons in the complaint namely, Nidhi Kakkar, Davinder Kumar Malhotra father of Nidhi Kakkar and Usha Malhotra (petitioner) wife of Davinder Kumar Malhotra came to be summoned under Section 500 IPC. The copy of the complaint dated 01.05.2008 and summoning order dated 03.12.2009 are attached as Annexures P-1 & P-2 respectively to the petition.

The petitioner, who was at that time said to be residing in Canada was declared a proclaimed offender on 20.09.2010 (Annexure P-3).

Meanwhile, Nidhi Kakkar and Davinder Kumar Malhotra were acquitted vide judgment dated 15.11.2013 (Annexure P-5).

Subsequently, the petitioner challenged the order whereby she was declared a proclaimed offender and she was asked to surrender before the Trial Court. In furtherance of the same, she surrendered and was granted the concession of interim bail after which her bail was made absolute by this Court vide order dated 27.01.2015 (Annexure P-7).

Thereafter, the instant petition was filed seeking quashing of the complaint and summoning order in which on 08.04.2016, the following order was passed:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for the identical allegations, a complaint against Nidhi Kakkar and Davinder Kumar was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 15.11.2013. However, while dismissing the complaint, the trial Court has left it open to the complainant to revive the complaint qua the petitioner who was otherwise residing abroad at that point of time. The petitioner was never served in the case but still has been declared proclaimed offender in the case.

Notice of motion for 18.07.2016.

Meanwhile, the personal appearance of the petitioner is exempted.

In view of the nature of allegations made in the complaint, the matter is referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. Parties are directed to remain present on 05.05.2016 before the Mediation and Conciliation of this Court.”

Thereafter, on 02.02.2017, the following order was passed:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to address arguments on the question of very maintainability of the petition.

List on 30th March, 2017.”

Thereafter, on 26.05.2017, the following order was passed:-

“The learned counsel for the applicant-respondent No.2/complainant states that under the garb of order dated 08.4.2016, the petitioner/accused is not appearing before the trial Court and her presence is necessary for the purpose of hearing arguments on the point of framing of charge.

Thus, the trial has been stalled because of non-appearance of the petitioner.

Notice of this application be issued for 12.7.2017.

Dasti as well.”

Thereafter, on 12.12.2017, the following order was passed:-

“On request, adjourned to 23.02.2018.

“Meanwhile, order dated 08.04.2016 passed by this Court, whereby personal appearance of the petitioner was exempted, shall remain in force.”

As the petitioner refused to appear before the Trial Court, charges could not be framed against her. She was declared a proclaimed person once again vide order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the JMIC, Jalandhar. The said order was challenged separately vide CRM-M-53452-2025 which petition has been withdrawn by the petitioner.

The learned