Dhruv Garg Vs State of Punjab and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Dhruv Garg Vs State of Punjab and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition partly allowed: the order dated 26.04.2016 (Annexure P-2) declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person was quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom; the petitioner was directed to surrender before the learned trial Court (para 9: within 04 weeks; para 10, as printed, repeats the direction with 15 days) and on surrender to be released on bail subject to furnishing fresh personal/surety bonds; his arrest was ordered to remain stayed till appearance; failure to appear within the stipulated time renders the petition deemed dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person without the learned trial Court following the procedure prescribed under Section 82 Cr.P.C., particularly recording its satisfaction that he had absconded or was concealing himself so that the previously issued warrant could not be executed despite reasonable diligence. +1 more

Court's answer

The learned trial Court, before ordering publication of proclamation, did not record its proper satisfaction that the petitioner had absconded or was concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest previously issued could not be executed despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C.; reliance was placed on Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi, 2008 Crl. J. 2561.

Ratio / Principle

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. till the declaration, the impugned order dated 26.04.2016 suffers from some illegalities and is liable to be quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Key takeaways

As the petitioner had been residing in Guwahati since the year 2020 and documents supporting that claim were placed on record, it could be assumed that the process issued by the learned trial Court never reached the petitioner; the matter also stood amicably settled between the parties.ratio¶7
Since the petitioner was ready to join the Court proceedings, which would help in speedy conclusion of trial, he was directed to surrender before the learned trial Court and, on doing so, to be released on bail subject to furnishing fresh personal/surety bonds to its satisfaction (para 9 prescribes 04 weeks; para 10 restates the direction with 15 days).ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing — proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. — Petition under Section 528 BNSS 2023 by Dhruv Garg against M/s Bharat Plywood Industries: challenge to Complaint No. 1072 of 2015 (Sections 138/142 NI Act; Sections 415/420 IPC; Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha) was given up on 21.03.2025, confining relief to the order dated 26.04.2016 declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person. Proclamation had been ordered on 19.03.2016 after non-bailable warrants were received back unserved, without the trial Court recording satisfaction that the petitioner was absconding or concealing himself so that the earlier warrant could not be executed despite reasonable diligence — contrary to Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., relying on Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi, 2008 Crl. J. 2561. Petitioner residing in Guwahati since 2020 with supporting documents; process presumed never to have reached him; parties arrived at a compromise. Held: the impugned order suffered illegalities; petition partly allowed; proclamation order quashed with consequential proceedings; petitioner directed to surrender and be released on bail on fresh personal/surety bonds (04 weeks per para 9; 15 days per para 10 as printed); arrest stayed till appearance; default entails deemed dismissal.

CRM-M-15620-2025 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

123+325

CRM-M-15620-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.07.2025

Dhruv Garg ...Petitioner

Versus

M/s Bharat Plywood Industries ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:Ms. Meena Bansal, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

CRM-17859-2025

Allowed as prayed for.

Documents are taken on reco r d.

2. CRM-M-15620-2025 (O&M)

The instant petition has origi n ally been filed under Section 5 2 8 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20 2 3 seeking quashing of Comp l aint bearing N o . 1072 of 2015, dated 28.10.20 1 5, titled as M/s Bharat Plywood vs. Dhruv Gupta , filed under Sections 138 / 142 of the Negotiable Instru m ents Act, 1881 and Sections 415 and 420 o f IPC, pending before the Cou r t of learned S ub Divisional Judicial Magi s trate, Nabha on the basis o f a compromi s e arrived at between the p a rties. However, vide order d ated 21.03.202 5 , the petitioner has restricte d his prayer only to the exte n t of quashing of order dated 26.04.2016, w hereby he had been declar e d a proclaime d person in the aforesaid procee d ings. 3. It is argued by learned couns e l for the petitioner that she wa s not MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI aware of p endency of aforesaid complaint against her as she has been resi d ing 2025.07.24 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-15620-2025 (O&M) -2-

in Guwah a ti since the year 2020. More s o , the petitioner had been decla r ed a proclaime d person without following the proper procedure prescribed u n der Section 8 2 of Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, a compromise has been arrived at between t h e parties. He is ready to join t he Court proceedings. Hence, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to b e set aside. 4. I have heard learned couns e l for the petitioner at conside r able length an d have also gone through the material placed on record. 5. On giving due deliberation s to the contentions as raise d by learned c o unsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed by the lea r ned trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings under Se c tion 82 Cr.P.C . as against the petitioner till th e date of declaring him a proclai m ed person, I am of the considered opini o n that the impugned order d ated 26.04.201 6 suffers from some illegalities and is liable to be quashed wit h all the conse q uential proceedings arising ther e from. 6. After going through the mat e rial placed on record as well a s the copies of z imni orders passed by the lear n ed trial Court, it is revealed th a t on 19.03.201 6 , since the non-bailable warra n ts issued against the petitioner w ere received b ack unserved, the learned trial Court had ordered for issuance of proclamat i on against him for 26.04.2016. A bare perusal of this order s h ows that the le a rned trial Court before orderin g for publication of proclamatio n has not recor d ed its proper satisfaction that t h e petitioner had absconded or was concealin g himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cann o t be executed, despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. R e liance in this regard can be pl a ced upon Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561.

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.24 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-15620-2025 (O&M) -3-

The petitioner has also take n a plea that he has been residi n g in Guwahati since the year 2020 and has placed on record certain docum e nts, which sup p orts his claim. Hence, it can b e assumed that the process issue d by learned tr i al Court never reached the pe t itioner. Even otherwise, the m a tter stands am i cably settled between the partie s .

Accordingly, in view of the d iscussion as made above and al s o in view of t h e ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities, the pr e sent petition i s partly allowed and the i m pugned order dated 26.04. 2 016 (Annexur e P-2), passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate F irst Class, Na b ha in the aforesaid case, where b y the petitioner had been decla r ed a proclaime d person, is quashed with all consequential proceedings ar i sing therefrom.

Keeping in view the fact th a t the petitioner is ready to joi n the Court pro c eedings which would obviousl y help in speedy conclusion of t rial, he is dire c ted to surrender before the lear n ed trial Court within a period o f 04 weeks fro m today and on doing so, the le a rned trial Court shall release hi m on bail, subject to his furnishing fresh person a l/surety bonds to its satisfactio n . 10. Keeping in view the fact th a t the petitioner is ready to joi n the Court pro c eedings, he is directed to surr e nder before the learned trial C ourt within a p e riod of 15 days from today an d on doing so, the learned trial C ourt shall release him on bail, subject to his fu r nishing personal/surety bonds to its satisfactio n .

Till the appearance of the petitioner before the learned trial Court, his arrest shall remain stayed.

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.24 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-15620-2025 (O&M) -4-

It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear b e fore

the learne d trial Court within the stipulate d time, this petition shall be dee m ed to be dis m issed.

23.07.2025 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Ansari JUDGE Whe t her speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whe t her reportable Yes/No

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.07.24 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document