SHIVAM DHIR CONTRACTOR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of impugned order dtd. 21/2/2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Malerkotla, in criminal complaint i.e. NACT/139/2021 dtd. 17/3/2021 titled as 'Narinder Singh Vs. M/s Shivam Dhir Contractor and another' filed by respondent No.2 under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'the Act') vide which the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners inter alia contends that a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Act was filed against the petitioners on the ground of dishonouring of cheque bearing No.015589 dtd. 20/12/2020 amounting to Rs.3,00,000.00 issued in favour of the complainant/respondent No.2 by the petitioner in discharge of his liability. Petitioner No.2 was summoned under Sec. 138 of the Act vide summoning order dtd. 29/4/2021 and it is submitted that petitioner has not received any summons. He further submits that in spite of submission of specific report before the learned trial Court regarding the residence of petitioner at Ranchi, the learned trial Court has directed respondent No.2 to furnish correct address of the petitioner. Further, respondent No.2 has not submitted any correct address nor any summon has been issued. On 21/2/2024, the trial Court declared the petitioner as proclaimed person. Aggrieved by the said impugned order dtd. 21/2/2024 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that neither any warrants nor summons have been served to the petitioner and, therefore, the finding of the trial Court that the petitioner is intentionally evading his arrest, is erroneous. Ultimately, vide impugned order dtd. 21/2/2024 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person. It is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the mandate of Sec. 82 of Cr.P.C. has not been followed in its letter and spirit by the trial Court.