Gurjeet Singh Johar vs State Of Punjab And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 20701 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurjeet Singh Johar vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 November, 2024

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153608

CRM-M-58212
      58212-2024 (O&M)                                                    -1--




      IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                  HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
135
                                                   CRM-M-58212-20242024 (O&M)
                                                    Date of decision: 21.11.2024

Gurjeet Singh Johar                                                 ...Petitioner

                                          Versus

State of Punjab and another                                      ...Respondents
                                                                 ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:-     Ms.
                s. Prachi Darji, Advocate for
              Mr. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate
              for the petitioner.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section

528 of Bharatiya Bhar tiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for shot 'BNSS') for

quashing of order dated 23.08.2023,, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Class Rupnagar in case bearing number mber NACT NACT-87-2019, titled as Jagjit

Kumar Jaggi vs. C & C Towers Ltd.

Ltd.,, filed under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N. I. Act') Act'),, whereby the

petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person. Although, the petitioner has

made some other prayers, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has

restricted her argument only to the extent of quashing of aforesaid order dated

23.08.2023.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the

grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been

falsely implicated in the aforesaid complaint. Since the complainant had given

wrong address of the petitioner, he could not be served with the

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153608

CRM-M-58212 58212-2024 (O&M) -2--

summons/warrants issued by the learned learned trial Court as the same were always

served at ISBT-cum-Commercial Commercial Complex, Opposite Verka Milk Point,

Phase-6, 6, SAS Nagar, whereas the correct addresses of the company and the

petitioner are Plot No. 70, Sector 32, Gurugram, Haryana and H. No. 11, Club Clu

Drive, M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Mehrauli, Delhi, respectively. Vide order dated

16.03.2019 passed by the learned trial Court, the complainant was even

directed to provide the correct address of the petitioner but he did not do so. It

is further argued that the petitioner petit had been declared a proclaimed person

without following the proper procedure prescribed under Section 82 Cr.P.C.

He is ready to appear before the learned trial Court and join the Court

proceedings. Hence, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be set

aside.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable

length and have also gone through the material placed on record.

4. On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by

learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed

by the learned trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings under Section

82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed

person,, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated

23.08.2023 suffers from several illegalities and is liable to be quashed with all

the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

5. There are catena of judgments of different High Courts

discussing the requirements necessary for issuance and publication of

proclamation against an absconder under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and for declaring

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153608

CRM-M-58212 58212-2024 (O&M) -3--

him as a proclaimed person/offender. These requirements have been discussed

from time to time in Rohit Kumar Vs. Stat Statee of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561,

Bishundayal Mahton and others Vs. Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366,

Devender Singh Negi Vs. State of U.P. : 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783,

Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826, Shokat Ali

Vs. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339, Dilbagh Singh Vs. State

of Punjab : (P&H) 2015 (8) R.C.R. (criminal) 166, Ashok Kumar Vs. State

of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 550, Pawan Kumar Kuma

Gupta Vs. The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368, Birad Dan Vs. State : 1958

CriLJ 965, Negi alias Debu Vs. State of U.P. and another, 1994 Cri LJ 1783

and Pal Singh Vs. The State : 1955 CriLJ 318.

6. After going through the material placed on record as well as the

copies of zimini orders passed by the trial Court, it is revealed that on

12.06.2023 since the non-bailable 12.06.2023, bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were

received back unserved, the trial Cour Courtt had ordered for issuance of

proclamation against him for 18.07.2023. On 18.07.2023, since the

proclamation issued on 12.06.2023 was not received, the learned trial Court

ordered for issuance of fresh proclamation for 03.08.2023, which means that

the petitioner tioner was granted only 19 days' time to cause his appearance before

the learned trial Court. Hence, the same was in clear violation of the

provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., as per which, a specified time of not less

than 30 days is required to be given to the accused from the date of publishing

such proclamation which is mandatory in nature. Reliance in this regard can

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153608

CRM-M-58212 58212-2024 (O&M) -4--

be placed upon Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ

826 and Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (Criminal (Criminal) 339.

7. When the case was taken up on 03.08.2023, the proclamation was

received back executed. However, since the mandatory period of 30 days had

not elapsed till then, the case was adjourned to 23.08.2023 awaiting the

appearance of the petitioner. However, while adjourning the case to

23.08.2023, the learned trial Court failed to consider the fact that it could not

have extended the time by simply adjourning the case as a fresh proclamation

was required to be published once the period between issuan issuance ce of publication

of proclamation and the specified period of hearing was less than 30 days.

Reference in this context can be made to Dilbagh Singh Vs. State of Punjab

(P&H) : 2015 (8) R.C.R. (criminal) 166.

166. More so, a perusal of the record also

reveals that at the summons/warrants were not issued at the correct address of

the petitioner or his his firm. Hence, it can reasonabl reasonably be presumed that the

process never reached the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, in view of the discussion as made above and also in

view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities authorities,, the present

petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 23.08.2023,, passed by

the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Class, Rupnagar in case bearing number

NACT-87--2019, titled as Jagjit Kumar Jaggi vs. C & C Towers Ltd.

Ltd.,, filed

under Section 138 of the N. I. Act, Act, whereby the petitioner had been declared a

proclaimed person,, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising

therefrom.

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153608

CRM-M-58212 58212-2024 (O&M) -5--

9. However, the petitioner is directed to surrend surrender er before the Court

concerned within a period of four weeks, subject to order for grant of

anticipatory bail, if any passed on his petition to be filed under Section 482 of

BNSS.. In the absence of any order for grant of anticipatory bail and on such

surrender, der, the petitioner shall be liable to be remanded to judicial custody

subject to any order for grant of regular bail to be passed by the concerned

Court in accordance with law.

10. Needless to observe that in case any application is filed before

the concerned erned Court for grant of regular bail, then the concerned Court shall

be bound to dispose of the same expeditiously and that nothing in this order

shall be treated as expression of any opinion on merits so as to bind or

influence the concerned Court in disposal disposal of the same.

11. Till the appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court, his

arrest shall hall remain remai stayed.

12. It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before

the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today, this petition shall be

deemed to be dismissed.

13. The petitioner may approach the learned trial Court at the

appropriate stage for seeking permanent exemption from his personal

appearance or for appearing through video conferencing.

21.11.2024                                                (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari                                                 JUDGE



          Whether speaking/reasoned                       Yes/No

          Whether reportable                              Yes/No



                                      5 of 5