Punjab-Haryana High Court
Saroj Rani vs Central Bank Of India And Another on 7 July, 2023
SANDEEP GROVER
2023.07.07 16:20
CRM-M No.28818 of 2023 (O&M) 2023: PHHC:085605
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
114
CRM-M No.28818 of 2023 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 07" JULY, 2023
Saroj Rani
..-- Petitioner
Versus
Central Bank of India and another
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT
Present: |§ Mr. Sushil Kumar Verma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
OK OK OK
RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of order dated 31.05.2022 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, vide which, the petitioner was
declared as proclaimed person and for quashing of all subsequent
proceedings arising out therefrom.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
respondent No.1 had initiated a complaint against the petitioner under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the said
complaint, though the petitioner was never served with any notice,
therefore, he could not appear before the trial Court. As a result, the
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment. -l-
CRM-M No.28818 of 2023 (O&M) 2023: PHHC:085605
petitioner was declared as proclaimed person. The petitioner never
intended to avoid the process of Court deliberately.
3. Moreover, the amount of the cheque involved in the
complaint was duly paid to the respondent-complainant. Accordingly, on
the statement made by the respondent/complainant, even the main
complaint case stands dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated
21.09.2022. Therefore, the petitioner would not require to appear before
the trial Court for any substantive proceedings in the main complainant.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of
respondent No.1 and Mr. Krishan K.Chahal, Addl. Advocate General,
Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2/State.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the
petitioner had avoided appearing before the trial Court despite service.
However, it is not disputed by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that
the amount of the cheque involved in the complaint case stood already
paid and, therefore, on the statement of learned counsel for
respondent/complainant, the main complaint itself was withdrawn by the
respondent.
7. In view of the above, it is clear that the main complaint case
against the petitioner does not survive in any more. Therefore, the
petitioner would not be required for any substantive proceedings against
her. Since, the main complaint itself already stands dismissed as
withdrawn, therefore, it would not be unjustified, if the order dated
31.05.2022 declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person in the said case
is quashed.
3023.07.07 16:20,
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment. -2-
CRM-M No.28818 of 2023 (O&M) 2023: PHHC:085605
8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and order dated
31.05.2022 passed by the trial Court, vide which, the petitioner was
declared as proclaimed person is set aside.
07" JULY, 2023 (RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)
'sandeep' JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No
Whether Reportable: Yes No
SANDEEP GROVER
2023.07.07 16:20
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment. -3-
