RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dtd. 19/10/2022 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur, whereby petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender in the proceedings arising from complaint No.NACT/436/2020 dtd. 18/9/2020 titled 'Manjit Singh v. Rakesh Kumar' under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act'), filed by respondent No.2. Further prayer has been made to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner or in the alternative to grant an opportunity to him to appear before the Court and admit on regular bail.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000.00 from respondent No.2-complainant in the month of September, 2018 for investment in his furniture business and promised to return the amount on or before 12/8/2020. In order to discharge his liability, petitioner gave a cheque bearing No.217626 of Corporation Bank to respondent No.2-complainant. On presentation of the said cheque by respondent No.2 with his banker i.e. Axis Bank, Dhariwal, the same was returned to him vide return memo dtd. 14/8/2020 with the remarks 'funds insufficient'. Thus, respondent No.2-complainant through his counsel sent legal notice to the petitioner on 25/8/2020 and requested the petitioner to make the payment of cheque amount within stipulated time. Legal notice was received by the petitioner-accused, however, he did not repay the amount. Hence, respondent No.2-complainant filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of the NI Act on 18/9/2020. The trial Court summoned the petitioner for 1/3/2021 vide order dtd. 1/2/2021 (Annexure P-2). Petitioner surrendered before the trial Court and he was granted bail vide order dtd. 12/10/2021. Thereafter, despite issuance of summons, his undertaking, bailable and non-bailable warrants, petitioner did not appear before the Court on various dates i.e. 21/10/2021, 26/11/2021, 9/3/2022, 19/5/2022 and 6/8/2022 despite the fact that petitioner was directed to appear before the trial Court through said process of service and finally he was declared proclaimed offender vide impugned order dtd. 19/10/2022. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court on 21/10/2021 as his counsel did not explain proper procedure for appearance before the Court and the petitioner was not having any knowledge that his personal presence was mandatory on each and every date of the case. It has further been argued that the petitioner was pursuing his LL.B. course on regular basis at Batala and most of the time he remained busy in attending classes and he used to go to library for preparation and since he was preparing for his examination for Semester-II, he could not appear before the Court.