Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Saluja vs State Of Haryana And Another on 31 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:114096
CRM-M-43250-2023 2023:PHHC:114096
- 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
123
CRM-M-43250-2023
Date of decision: 31.08.2023
Sandeep Saluja
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
****
Present : Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of order dated 14.07.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Panipat, whereby the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person in
complaint case no.NACT 1495/2019 dated 22.07.2019 under Section 138 of
NI Act, 1881.
2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been declared
proclaimed person in a complaint filed by respondent No.2 under Section 138
of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 vide impugned order dated 14.07.2023
without any service effected upon him, on account of the fact that he had
shifted from Zirakpur to Panchkula and in the registered AD, the previous
address of the petitioner had been mentioned, which is apparent from the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:114096
CRM-M-43250-2023 2023:PHHC:114096
- 2-
report dated 13.06.2023 of the serving Constable. Rent agreement showing
that he was residing in Panchkula but in the complaint his previous address of
Zirakpur was mentioned. Thus, he never received the summons. The absence
of the petitioner was neither wilful nor deliberate and on account of the reason
aforesaid. Further that he is ready and willing to join the proceedings and it is
prayed that one opportunity may be granted to him to surrender before the
learned trial Court, even if the same is subject to costs. Reliance is placed on
the the orders of this Court in CRM-M-38277-2022 dated 26.08.2022, in the
case of Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-39000-2022, titled as
Raghav vs. State of Punjab, decided on 09.09.2022 and CRM-M-36490-
2022, titled as Major Singh vs. State of Punjab, decided on 15.9.2022.
3. Notice of motion.
4. Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Addl. AG, Haryana, who has appeared
on receipt of advance copy of the petition, opposes the same by submitting
that the impugned order is legal and valid and has been rightly passed by the
trial Court on account of non-appearance of the petitioner.
5. No order prejudicial to the rights of the private respondent is
being proposed to be passed by this Court, thus, there is no requirement for
the notice to be issued to it.
6. Heard.
7. The very purpose of initiation of proclamation proceedings, is to
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.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:114096
CRM-M-43250-2023 2023:PHHC:114096
- 3-
8. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the reasons for
non-appearance of the petitioner that led to the passing of the impugned order,
appear to be justified. At times, the accused can be prevented by sufficient
reasons to put an appearance before the Court and such an absence cannot
necessarily be construed as deliberate and wilful. However, it is incumbent
upon him to join the proceedings, before the trial Court, for the culmination of
the same. Considering the fact that the absence of the petitioner was not
wilful or deliberate and his 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. Thus, in order to make the ends of justice meet
and finding judgments referred to above being applicable to the instant case,
the present petition deserves to be allowed.
9. In view of the afore-referred orders and the facts and
circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 14.07.2023 is set aside
subject to surrender by the petitioner before the trial Court on or before
14.09.2023 and depositing Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the complainant. On
furnishing bail/surety bonds, the trial Court shall release him on bail subject
to its satisfaction. He is also directed to furnish an undertaking by way of an
affidavit that he will appear on each and every date of hearing before the trial
Court, unless specifically exempted by the Court. He shall not leave the
country without prior permission of the Court. The trial Court may impose
any other condition that it may deem appropriate in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:114096
CRM-M-43250-2023 2023:PHHC:114096
- 4-
10. The present petition is allowed in part.
11. Before parting with this order, it is made abundantly clear that in
case the petitioner does not adhere to the aforesaid, the present petition shall
be deemed to have been dismissed without any reference to this Court.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
August 31, 2023
Ankur
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:114096
4 of 4
