Kashmir Singh vs State Of H.P. & Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 628 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No.27 of 2021.

.

Date of Decision : January 19, 2021.

Kashmir Singh                                             ...Petitioner.
                           Versus





State of H.P. & Another                                  ...Respondents.
Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Vacation Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

For the petitioner : Ms. Anubhuti Sharma,Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Bhupender Thakur & Mr. Gaurav

Sharma, Dy. A.Gs. & Mr. Rajat

Chauhan, Law Officer for respondent No.1.

COURT PROCEEDINGS CONVENED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE

Anoop Chitkara, Vacation Judge (oral).

The petitioner, who was declared as proclaimed offender

for intentionally delaying the trial has come up before this Court for

setting aside the proclamation order passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Mandi, in case (NI Act) No.197-

III/17/2012, titled Suresh Sharma versus Kashmir Singh & Another.

2. Notice. Mr. Bhupender Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate

General appears and accepts service of notice on behalf of

respondent No.1.

3. Mr. Bhupender Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General

submits that since the matter pertains to proclamation and it is

between the Court and the accused, as such no reply would be

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

required on behalf of the State. He further submits that to ensure

that the accused does not indulge in delaying tactics as such he be

.

directed to deposit some amount in terms of Section 143 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act. Be that as it may. It is for the

complainant to file an application, in case he wants such money to be

deposited under Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. The matter is summons case and deals with Negotiable

Instruments Act, which is primarily an economic offence.

5. Given the fact that the complaint pertains to the year 2010

and the petitioner delayed the same considerably, the petition is

allowed and the proclamation order is set aside, subject to the

petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.25,000/- as costs to the complainant

on or before 22nd February, 2021, on which date the petitioner-

accused shall appear before the trial Court. It is clarified that this

costs shall not be treated as part of compensation, in case the

accused ultimately stands convicted. This order shall ceases to have

any force of law, in the the petitioner either fails to appear on 22 nd

February, 2021 or does not pay the amount of costs as mentioned

above. It is further clarified that in case the petitioner further

indulges in any delaying tactics, it shall be viewed seriously. The

accused is also directed to furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of

learned trial Court. Pending application(s), if any, are closed.

Copy Dasti.

(Anoop Chitkara), Vacation Judge January 19, 2021 (ps)