Gurlal Singh vs State Of U.T Chandigarh And Ors

CRM-M-63025-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
138
CRM-M-63025-2026
Date of decision: 04.11.2026
GURLAL SINGH
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF U.T CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present:- Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Prateek Rathee, Addl. PP, U.T. Chandigarh
for respondent No.1-U.T. Chandigarh.
*
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been instituted under Section 528 of
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) for quashing order dated 05.12.2024
(Annexure P-5) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Chandigarh in complaint case bearing NACT-3880 of 2022 titled 'Kotak
Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Gurlal Singh' under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, whereby the petitioner has been declared as a
Proclaimed Person.
2. Notice of motion.
3. Mr. Prateek Rathee, Addl. PP, U.T. Chandigarh, accepts notice
on behalf of the respondent No.1-U.T. Chandigarh. Both the parties have
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.12 10:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-63025-2026 -2-
been heard and material on file has been perused.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the
record, this Court is of the view that dispute raised through the present
petition can be decided in limine and without calling the other side here
because the way this Court intends to dispose of the present petition, no
prejudice would be suffered by the respondent bank qua its rights.
5 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has annexed various orders
passed by the learned trial court and the relevant orders are reproduced as
under:
Proclamation Notice dated 22.03.2024 (Annexure P-3)
"WHEREAS, complaint has been made before me that Gurlal Singh
S/o Kirtan Singh R/o H. 86, Village Bajakhana, Teh. and Distt.
Faridkot has committed (or is suspected to have committed) the
offence punishable under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act...
Proclamation is hereby made that the said Gurlal Singh is required to
appear at District and Session Court, Sangrur before the Additional
District and Session Judge to answer the said complaint on the day of
03.10.2024."
Report of Serving Official ASI Ravi Kumar dated 28.05.2024
(Annexure P-4)
"It is requested that copy of proclamation has been affixed on the
door of house of the accused, one copy has been affixed on the local
bus stand and the third copy was affixed on the notice board of the
Court and the fourth one has been returned to the court after
reporting."
Impugned Order dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure P-5)
"Present: Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Statement of serving official already recorded on 28.05.2024. Period
of 30 days has been elapsed. Case called several times since morning,
but none has appeared on behalf of accused. Court is satisfied that
accused is willfully concealing himself and therefore accused namely
Gurlal Singh is declared proclaimed person. Intimation be sent to the
SHO concerned through the Naib Court for making entry in his
register... In view of his statement file be consigned to Record Room
with the liberty to complainant to revive the present complaint as and
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.12 10:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-63025-2026 -3-
when accused is arrested or surrendered."
6. After perusing the record and various orders passed by the Trial
Court, I am of the considered opinion that mandatory statutory provisions
have not been followed while initiating and declaring the petitioner a
proclaimed person and the impugned order is liable to be set aside for the
following reasons:
7. A perusal of record shows that the petitioner was summoned to
face the trial for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act vide order dated
24.08.2022. In the order dated 02.03.2023, it has been observed that counsel
for complainant has placed on file the receipt of the registered letter sent to
the petitioner and since period of 30 days has expired, the accused has not
appeared and the trial Court ordered that he be summoned through bailable
warrants. On the adjourned date, bailable warrant was received back
unexecuted and Court observed that accused is evading the service of
warrants and issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner for
31.10.2022, on which date, non-bailable warrant was received back
unexecuted and trial Court observed that accused is intentionally evading his
appearance and initiated the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and
ordered issuance of proclamation for 18.03.2024. On that date, proclamation
was not issued and case was adjourned to 03.10.2024 and thereafter to
05.12.2024. On 05.12.2024, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person.
However, no proclamation had been issued for 05.12.2024. The
proclamation had infact been issued for 03.10.2024 and affixation was done
on 28.05.2024, as per statement of serving constable (Annexure P-4).
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.12 10:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-63025-2026 -4-
8. I n this manner, there are glaring violations regarding
compliance of the mandatory requirements under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 of
BNSS). Neither sincere efforts were made to secure the presence of
petitioner as his bailable warrants and non-bailable warrants had been
received back unexecuted and the orders are silent as to why the same could
not be served. Reports are also silent whether the petitioner was residing at
the given address or not and the court of its own without recording cogent
reasons came to the conclusion that accused is evading the process and has
absconded and his presence cannot be secured in ordinary manner.
Thereafter, the proclamation has been issued for 03.10.2024 but on that date,
the Presiding Officer was on leave and the file was put up before some other
Magistrate and case was adjourned to 05.12.2024,on which date, petitioner
was declared a proclaimed person. However, no proclamation had been
issued for 05.12.2024 and in case, no order has been passed declaring
petitioner proclaimed person on 03.10.2024, fresh proclamation should have
been issued against the petitioner and since no proclamation had been issued
for 05.12.2024, he had no knowledge that he was required to appear before
the Trial Magistrate on the date fixed and grave illegality thus has been
committed while declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person. In holding so,
I have relied upon the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-
M-47603-2025 titled Ajay Kumar v. State of UT Chandigarh (decided
vide judgment dated 04.09.2025) and CRM-M-69370-2025 titled Narender
Kumar v. State of Haryana (decided vide judgment dated 09.12.2025) in
which it has been held that failure to provide 30 clear days between
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.12 10:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-63025-2026 -5-
publication and the date fixed for appearance is a fatal jurisdictional
infirmity that vitiates the proclamation proceedings.
9. The matter does not rest here. The mandatory requirement of
public reading under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C./Section 84(2)(a) BNSS was
completely ignored. The report of serving official ASI Ravi Kumar dated
28.05.2024 (Annexure P-4) confirms that copies were merely pasted on the
house door, bus stand, and court notice board, without publicly reading out
the proclamation in any conspicuous place of the village/town where the
accused resided. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in 2022(1) Law Herald
219 titled Rahul Dureja and another v. State of Punjab has held that
public reading of the proclamation in a conspicuous place of the
town/village is mandatory, and its omission renders the proclamation notice
and all subsequent proceedings a complete nullity. The same principle has
been consistently followed in 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 493 (Harvinder
Singh v. State of Haryana), 2024(1) Law Herald 859 (Mahender Kumar
v. HDFC Ltd.) , 2024(1) Law Herald 291 (Ramandeep Singh Sangha v.
State of Punjab) and 2024(2) RCR (Criminal) 5 (Sukhjinder Singh v.
State of Punjab).
10. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is
accepted and the impugned order dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed
by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, declaring the petitioner a
proclaimed person, is set aside. However, the petitioner shall surrender
before the learned Trial Court within a period of 30 days from today and the
learned Trial Court shall admit him to bail and proceed with the trial in
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.12 10:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-63025-2026 -6-
accordance with law.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
04.11.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
Priyanka Thakur
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.12 10:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document