Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajeshwar vs State Of Haryana And Another on 13 July, 2022
CRM-M-2d928-2022
iN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-24928-2022
Reserved on: O7.07. 2022
Pronounced an: (207.2022
Rajeshwar
x
S
NS Yeu
sont Stete of Neryana & another
eS 3
§ Respondentist
Xoo'
NYS
= CORAM: HON'RLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKRARA
Yee
SSSssan.
aw Presenti- Ndr. Saurabh Baja}, Advacate
SS SS
oy for the petitioner,
XK
~~
So *
< Mir, Manish Bansal, DAG, Naryans,
ww neem
Se Re RR
x
~ ANOOP CHITKARA, 1.
AS
SS
>) Complaint No. 'Dated Court Sections
sd ee cevcsesleseeteae te bees Bececonetes ceeneneeeeantiennttet ccs sseesauaseunasvarinehrssddhacessaqaeagceesdtasseeseansinsceavesereesertscesiactreenereeterterqeecsinaeevtcnreneeens
a ALLf2228/2018 IMIC, flewarl 138/142 of the Negotiable
~~
LAS
ow
KK
"S
"Sy
RN come up before this cowl under Section 482 of the Code af Cranial Procedure,
SSX
sos 973 (CrP),
SK
SS
instruments Act.
Seeking quashing of ereciamation order Annexure P-1, the accused has
Petitiorerawvas df
>,
grec as an accused iy the above captioned matter, On
failure to serve the petitioner through the ordinary orocess, including surnmoans,
bailabie warrants, and even noar-hallable warrants, the cancerned court finally
proceeded against the pelitiener under section &2 of CrPC and declared the
aes
vetitioner a proclaimed offender vide order dated 15-12-2021
3. in paragreagh 3 of the petition, itis deciared that the non-agngesrance was
due to non-receipt of summons and the moment he was awere of the case, he
settied the matter with the cornplainant. Statement of the cammlainant qua the
"ASHWANT' KUMAR
202:2),07;13°13:29
Teattest: tothe accuracy and
_ authenticity of th
""Grderyjudgment
CRAE-M-24928-2022 a
receint af the gayment has been annexed with this petition. Vide order dated
O7-04-2022, the id UMIC Rewari accepted the compromise and dismissed the
cammant as withdrawn. The cagy of the order has been glacedi with the
petition, The point to which the setitioner wants to draw the attention af this
court is that the absence was not wilful, and was due to the factors beyand the
nettioner's control. The Stste could not dispute the factual matrix af this stage.
4 Given the above, the petitioner has made a case on the preponderance of
probabliity that neither any sincere etternot was made to execute the warrants
\s
SSE
Nw nor did the petitioner have any knowledge about appearance as contemplated
ey under section 82 CrPC. Thus, the arder is arbitrary and did not affard reasonable
€ \ opportunity as mandated under Section 82
AWN
So of i : 3 . = Re £ es 4
eX & Consequently, the Impugned order of sroclarmetion dated 15-12-2921,
< 88 , ° .
ws gassed by Id. JMIC Rewarl, in this matter is set aside. Resuflfantiy, the nan-
es
~~ not be enforced, The ball bonds are discharged,
Ke sts
~ nee / . . / ee ee SEES
~ Petition allowed inthe terms mentioned above.
Sey
aye
SX
SS Se
dss
"A {ANOOP CHITKARA)
= JUDGE
So
Ko
OFCrPC,
ballable warrants issued against the petithoner in the FIR captioned above, shall
AK
SVyV
SAS
wy i = eet exe:
ww Whether s speaking /reasane Yas
SN Whether reportable: Na.
x
\\
We
NY
RS
SS
\.
ASHWANI KUMAR
2022.07.13 13:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
