PUNEET SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is for quashing the order dated 4.1.2013 (Annexure P-3), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur, whereby the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person in a complaint case, titled as "Varinder Kumar v. Puneet Sharma", pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2- complainant, Varinder Kumar, presented a complaint for prosecution of the petitioner, Puneet Sharma, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, 'the Act'), before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur. Vide order dated 17.10.2009, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hohiarpur, summoned the petitioner to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. The petitioner appeared before the learned Court below and was released on bail on 19.5.2010. For few dates the petitioner appeared before the learned Court below, but on 21.11.2011 when he failed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, his bail was cancelled and he was ordered to be summoned by way of non-bailable warrants. In spite of that, the presence of the petitioner could not be secured. Therefore, by resorting to the procedure laid down in Section 82, Cr.P.C., he (petitioner) was declared as a proclaimed offender vide order dated 4.1.2013, which is under challenge before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel submitted that after grant of bail on 19.5.2010, the petitioner appeared before the learned Trial court on 14.8.2010, 18.10.2010, 1.3.2011 and 12.7.2011, but on 21.11.2011 he could not attend the Trial Court since he had to go to Bangalore due to personal reasons and before leaving for Bangalore, he had informed his counsel with regard to his absence on the said date; later on he came to know that his counsel did not move an application for exemption from personal appearance and, therefore, non-bailable warrants were issued for securing his presence; and thereafter the petitioner remained confined to bed for about 11/2 months due to dengue fever. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner could not be declared as a proclaimed offender by virtue of Section 82, Cr.P.C.. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Arpit v. State of Haryana (CRM-M-31141-2012, decided on 5.10.2012). He had also argued that the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, was a bailable offence, therefore, the learned Trial Court was not competent to issue non-bailable warrants for securing the presence of the petitioner. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Saini v. State of Haryana and another (CRM-M-4387-2012, decided on 15.2.2012).