SURINDER KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the instant case, this court sees no necessity to issue notice to the respondent No.2/complainant. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while appearing on behalf of the respondent-State fairly states that one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to cause his presence before learned trial Court.

(2.) By way of instant petition filed under S.482 CrPC, challenge has been laid to orders dated 18.8.2021 and 23.9.2021, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla in case No. 9003796/2013, (796-3 of 14/13) titled Adesh Kumar Jain vs. Surender Kumar, whereby learned court below, besides initiating separate proceedings under S.446 CrPC against the accused as well as his surety, also ordered for issuance of proclamation against the petitioner in terms of S.82 CrPC, to be executed on or before 30.10.2021.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused material available on record vis-a-vis the reasoning assigned in the impugned orders, this court finds that since despite sufficient opportunity, accused and his surety failed to put appearance before learned trial Court, it had no option but to proceed against the petitioner-accused and his surety under S. 446 CrPC and for declaring accused proclaimed offender under S.82 CrPC.