PALWINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the impugned order dtd. 18/9/2024 (Annexure P-3) and order dtd. 20/2/2025 (Annexure P-9) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar vide which bail bonds of the petitioner has been forfeited and the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person, without effecting proper service, in complaint case bearing NACT No.3401 of 2021, titled as 'M/s JS Trading vs. M/s Bamrah Silk Mills and another'. Further prayer has been made that petitioner may kindly be allowed to furnish fresh bail bonds and surety bonds.

(2.) It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely prosecuted in criminal complaint filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He has submitted that after registration of the complaint, the petitioner was summoned to face trial and she was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court. He has submitted that the petitioner could not appear before the learned trial Court on the date fixed, i.e. 29/8/2024 as her husband, i.e. respondent No.4 conveyed to petitioner that he had already compromised the matter with the complainant and thus, her presence before the learned trial Court was not required. He has submitted that the petitioner had a matrimonial dispute with her husband, which is pending before the learned Family Court, Amritsar, and she is residing separately at her parental house. He has submitted that the petitioner was neither informed nor aware of any proceedings in the present complaint case. He has submitted that due to non appearance of the petitioner, vide order dtd. 18/9/2024, her bail bonds and surety bonds were forfeited and non bailable warrants were also issued against her. He has thus submitted that vide order dtd. 20/2/2025, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person. He has submitted that the petitioner filed a petition praying for the grant of anticipatory bail before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, however the same was dismissed vide order dtd. 1/12/2025. He has submitted that the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person is in violation of the provisions of Sec. 82 of Cr.P.C. He has submitted that the petitioner is keen to join the proceedings. He has thus submitted that the petitioner be granted protection for appearing before the learned trial Court.

(3.) Notice of motion to official respondent No.1 at this stage. On asking of the Court, Ms. Ramta Chowdhary, DAG,