Sanjeev Kaul Duggal And Ors vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-23781-2018 & Connected cases -: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( 129 Four Cases ) Date of Decision: 27.08.2026
1. CRM-M-23781-2018
Sanjeev Kaul Duggal and Others .... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab .... Respondent
2. CRM-M-23798-2018
Sanjeev Kaul Duggal and Others .... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab .... Respondent
3. CRM-M-23834-2018
Sanjeev Kaul Duggal and Others .... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab .... Respondent
4. CRM-M-23866-2018
Sanjeev Kaul Duggal and others .... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab .... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present : Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Lakshey Bector, Advocate and
Mr. Ajay Chawla, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Baljnder Singh Sra, Additional AG, Punjab.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23781-2018 & Connected cases -: 2 :-
1. This order shall dispose of the present four petitions, as they arise
from the same set of proceedings pending before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Patiala, involve common petitioners and give rise to substantially
overlapping questions of fact and law. In view of the commonality of the factual
and legal matrix, these petitions are being adjudicated upon by this common
judgment.
2. For facility of reference, CRM-M-23866-2018 and CRM-M-
23834-2018 assail the criminal proceedings and the summoning order dated
07.11.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, whereas
CRM-M-23798-2018 and CRM-M-23781-2018 call in question the
subsequent order dated 03.01.2018, whereby the petitioners were declared
proclaimed offenders.
3. The controversy, in substance, lies within a narrow compass. The
petitioners assert that they were never named or arrayed as accused in the
complaints; no judicial process was ever issued against them in their individual
names; no valid summons were served upon them; and, consequently, there
could arise no legally sustainable basis for treating them as persons deliberately
evading the process of law and, thereafter, invoking the extraordinary coercive
procedure contemplated under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
4. The underlying proceedings emanate from Complaint No.41 dated
07.11.2012 and Complaint No.42 dated 20.11.2012, instituted under Sections 59
and 425 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, read with the
Rules/Regulations framed thereunder. Complaint No.41 arose out of an
inspection conducted at an Easy Day Market outlet situated at Omaxe Mall,
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23781-2018 & Connected cases -: 3 :-
Patiala, in connection with a sample of ginger, whereas Complaint No.42
emanated from an inspection of another Easy Day Market outlet at Bhadson
Road, Patiala, concerning samples of natural jaggery. The complaints
essentially referred to the concerned store managers and, in general terms, to
the company/nominee/partner/MD/proprietor/director, without individually
identifying the present petitioners or attributing any specific role to them. The
consistent case of the petitioners is that they were neither individually named in
the complaints nor subjected to any specific process of law in their respective
names. The paper books, as placed on record, also disclose their specific
assertion that no summons were ever issued or served upon them individually
pursuant to the institution of the complaints.
5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, passed the
summoning order dated 07.11.2012. The principal grievance of the petitioners
is that the said order neither adverts to any specific role allegedly attributable to
them nor individually identifies or summons them by name. Aggrieved thereby,
the petitioners invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. However, notwithstanding the pendency of the proceedings before this
Court, the proceedings before the learned Trial Court continued. The zimni
orders forming part of the record assume considerable significance in this
regard. They indicate that the process was initially directed to the
company/address and that, subsequently, proceedings came to be pursued
against persons described merely as accused Nos.2 and 3, without their names
having been specifically incorporated either in the original complaints or in the
process in the manner contemplated by law.
6. The record further reveals that, on 29.11.2017, a Food Clerk of the
department moved an application before the learned Trial Court seeking to
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23781-2018 & Connected cases -: 4 :-
furnish the names and addresses of the persons against whom the proceedings
were sought to be continued. The specific case of the petitioners is that their
names were procured from the internet on the premise that they were directors
of Bharti Retail Limited. The aforesaid development assumes considerable
significance, inasmuch as the petitioners were sought to be identified and
brought into the proceedings almost five years after the original summoning
order dated 07.11.2012, without any demonstrable antecedent of valid service
of judicial process upon them individually. The subsequent zimni orders further
indicate that the learned Trial Court proceeded on the premise that the summons
issued to the concerned accused had not been received back and thereafter
proceeded to issue bailable as well as non-bailable warrants. However, the
record does not disclose any legally sustainable or demonstrable service of such
process upon the petitioners individually prior to the initiation of coercive
measures against them.
7. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court proceeded to invoke Section 82
Cr.P.C. and directed issuance of proclamation against accused Nos.2 and 3. The
proclamation was stated to have been effected at the premises described as the
office of Bharti Retail Limited, situated at Centrum Plaza, Tower-C, 2nd Floor,
Golf Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon. Significantly, however, the material
forming part of the record indicates that Bharti Retail Limited had ceased to
occupy the said premises as early as April, 2014. The petitioners have placed on
record the settlement deed and the note regarding handing over of physical
possession dated 04.04.2014, to substantiate their contention that the premises
were no longer in the occupation of Bharti Retail Limited when the
proclamation proceedings were undertaken. They have also relied upon
subsequent corporate documents evidencing the change of name of Bharti
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23781-2018 & Connected cases -: 5 :-
Retail Limited to Future Retail Limited in 2016. Eventually, on 03.01.2018, the
learned Trial Court recorded that the statutory period of one month from the
issuance of proclamation had elapsed and, noticing the non-appearance of
accused Nos.2 and 3, proceeded to declare them proclaimed offenders. It is this
order dated 03.01.2018 which is specifically assailed in CRM-M-23781-2018
and CRM-M-23798-2018, whereas the other two petitions assail the
foundational criminal proceedings and the summoning order dated 07.11.2012.
8. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire
subsequent course of proceedings stands vitiated at its very foundation. It is
contended that a person who was never individually summoned by name and at
his proper address cannot, in the absence of valid service of judicial process, be
presumed to have deliberately evaded the process of the Court. Learned Senior
counsel submits that the names of the petitioners did not figure in the original
complaints; they were never specifically arrayed as accused therein; and their
subsequent identification from information downloaded from the internet could
not, by itself, furnish a legally tenable basis to presume that they had been duly
arraigned or summoned as accused. It is further contended that the proclamation
proceedings were undertaken against persons who had neither been duly
arraigned as accused nor personally served with judicial process, and in respect
of whom there was no material demonstrating that they had absconded or were
deliberately concealing themselves to evade execution of warrants. Learned
Senior counsel also draws attention to the fact that the proclamation was
allegedly effected at premises which had ceased to be occupied by Bharti Retail
Limited in April, 2014. On these premises, it is submitted that the entire
exercise culminating in the declaration of the petitioners as proclaimed
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23781-2018 & Connected cases -: 6 :-
offenders is legally unsustainable and amounts to an abuse of the process of the
Court. Accordingly, allowing of the petitions has been prayed for.
9. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
petitions and placed reliance upon the proceedings recorded by the learned Trial
Court, as also the reports pertaining to service of summons, issuance of
warrants and execution of proclamation. It is submitted that the petitioners were
proceeded against pursuant to the successive orders passed by the learned Trial
Court and that the reports forming part of the judicial record reflect the various
steps undertaken to secure their presence. Learned State counsel, therefore,
submits that no jurisdictional or procedural infirmity warranting interference in
exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court has been demonstrated.
Dismissal of the petitions has, accordingly, been prayed for.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length
and, with their able assistance, have carefully perused the paper books as well
as the material placed on record.
11. The petitioners were neither named nor arrayed as accused in the
complaints; their names surfaced only on 29.11.2017 through the Food Clerk’s
application, allegedly based on information downloaded from the internet
showing them as Directors of Bharti Retail Limited. No valid summons or
warrants were ever issued and served upon them individually. Their subsequent
identification could neither retrospectively validate judicial process nor justify
invocation of Section 82 Cr.P.C., which presupposes valid process against the
particular individual and deliberate abscondence or concealment. The
proclamation, moreover, was effected at the erstwhile office of Bharti Retail
Limited at Centrum Plaza, Gurgaon, despite the settlement deed and possession
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23781-2018 & Connected cases -: 7 :-
note dated 04.04.2014 indicating that the premises had already been vacated.
There is no cogent material showing knowledge and deliberate evasion on the
part of the petitioners, who consistently asserted that they learnt of the
proceedings only in 2018. Equally, the summoning order dated 07.11.2012
records no application of judicial mind to their individual role or culpability, nor
any material establishing that they were in charge of and responsible for the
company’s business; mere designation or alleged directorship cannot ipso facto
sustain their prosecution.
12. The contours and parameters governing exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482
Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of the BNSS) are well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in the landmark judgment of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan
Lal & Ors., 1991 (1) RCR(Criminal) 383 , has illustratively delineated the
categories of cases in which such extraordinary jurisdiction may legitimately be
exercised, either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. The said principles, while not constituting an
exhaustive or inflexible formula, furnish the settled parameters within which
the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court is required to be exercised,
which are as under:-
“107. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of
cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised
either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down
any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23781-2018 & Connected cases -: 8 :-
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list
of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or
the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2)
of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with
an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
108. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of
quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly
and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases;
that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as
to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23781-2018 & Connected cases -: 9 :-
made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or
inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the
Court to act according to its whim or caprice.”
13. In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401 , a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reiterated and elaborately examined the settled parameters
governing exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was
reiterated that the power to quash criminal proceedings is extraordinary in
nature and is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the
rarest of rare cases, such expression being understood in the context of exercise
of inherent jurisdiction and not equated with the standard applicable to cases
involving capital punishment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further cautioned
that, while examining an FIR or complaint, the High Court ought not to embark
upon an enquiry into the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
or undertake an appreciation of the evidence. At the same time, where the case
falls within the recognised parameters for exercise of inherent jurisdiction, and
having regard to the principles enunciated in R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab ,
AIR 1960 SC 866, and State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal , supra, the
High Court would be fully competent to interdict and quash the criminal
proceedings in order to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends
of justice.
14. Tested on the aforesaid touchstone, the present case falls squarely
within the permissible contours of exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The
allegations contained in the complaints, read in conjunction with the material
placed on record, fail to disclose the requisite factual foundation for fastening
criminal liability upon the present petitioners in their individual capacity.
Significantly, the petitioners are neither named nor individually arrayed as
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23781-2018 & Connected cases -: 10 :-
accused in the complaints, nor do the complaints contain the necessary
averments attributing to them any specific role or connecting them with the
statutory liability contemplated under Section 66 of the Food Safety and
Standards Act. Their subsequent identification merely as persons associated
with or allegedly holding the position of directors in the company cannot, by
itself, cure the foundational defect, supply the conspicuously absent statutory
ingredients or retrospectively validate the issuance of criminal process against
them.
15. The fact that the petitioners were never duly arrayed as accused is
borne out, in the first instance, from the very memo of parties accompanying
the complaints, which is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference: -
“State
Vs.
1. Pradyumn Gurtu, S/o Pradeeep Gurtu Store Manager of Bharti
Retail Limited, Easy Day Market, Omaxe Mall, Opposite Kali Mata
Mandir, Patiala R/o 52A, Model Town, Patiala.
2. Nominee Partner/M.D./Prop/Director of Bharti Retail Limited,
Centrum Plaza, Tower C, 2nd Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector 53,
Gurgaon 122002.”
15.1. Likewise, the summoning order dated 07.11.2012 was passed
without specifically identifying or naming the accused against whom the
process was purportedly being issued. The operative portion of the said order,
which assumes significance for determining the validity of the subsequent
proceedings, reads as under:-
xxxx
“ Heard File perused. The sample in this case was taken and found
to be unsafe for human consumption upon analysis. Thus from the facts
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23781-2018 & Connected cases -: 11 :-
mentioned in the complaint and other document on the file there are
sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused under the Act.
Accordingly, accused be summoned for 23.01.13. ”
16. At the stage of taking cognizance and issuing process, the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate was required to examine the complaints and the
material placed on record with due application of judicial mind, particularly
with a view to ascertain the identity of the persons against whom process was
sought to be issued and the factual basis for fastening criminal liability upon
each such individual. However, the record reveals that, at the time of passing
the summoning order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate failed to take note
of the fundamental fact that accused No.2 in Complaint No.41 dated 07.11.2012
and accused Nos.2 and 3 in Complaint No.42 dated 20.11.2012 had not been
specifically named or individually identified in the respective memos of parties.
There was, in fact, no identifiable individual answering to the description of
accused No.2 in Complaint No.41 dated 07.11.2012 or accused Nos.2 and 3 in
Complaint No.42 dated 20.11.2012. Thus, the summoning order, insofar as it
purported to initiate criminal process against such unnamed and unidentified
persons, suffers from a manifest infirmity and reflects a failure to apply the
requisite judicial mind to the very identity and legal status of the persons sought
to be proceeded against.
16.1. It is a settled principle that issuance of criminal process is not a
mechanical or routine exercise, but a serious judicial act having far-reaching
consequences for the person summoned. Although the Magistrate is not
required, at that stage, to record an elaborate or detailed judgment, the order
issuing process must nevertheless evince due and conscious application of
judicial mind to the allegations, the material placed on record and the necessity
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23781-2018 & Connected cases -: 12 :-
of proceeding against the particular person sought to be summoned. In Pepsi
Foods Ltd. and another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, 1998 (5)
SCC 74 9, the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that summoning of an
accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that criminal law cannot be
set into motion as a matter of course. The Magistrate is required to examine the
allegations and the material brought on record and satisfy himself that sufficient
grounds exist for proceeding against the person concerned. The said principle
was reiterated in Mehmood Ul Rehman vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and
others, 2015 (12) SCC 420 , and more recently in M/s J.M. Laboratories and
others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, 2025 INSC 127 , wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the necessity of demonstrable application of
mind while issuing process and deprecated orders whereby process is issued
without due consideration of the material and the basis for proceeding against
the accused.
17. The present case presents a more fundamental infirmity. The
petitioners were neither named nor individually arrayed as accused in the
complaints, nor does the summoning order dated 07.11.2012 contain any
specific reference to their names or record any conscious determination that
they were being summoned as accused in their individual capacities. Rather, the
persons who were actually arrayed as accused in the complaints were
summoned. The petitioners came into the picture only subsequently, when
summons and warrants issued against the purportedly unnamed accused were
returned unserved or unexecuted. It was thereafter that the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate proceeded to initiate coercive proceedings against the
petitioners and ultimately directed issuance of proclamation against them. Such
a course of action, in the absence of any antecedent judicial order specifically
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23781-2018 & Connected cases -: 13 :-
arraigning and summoning the petitioners as accused and without
demonstrating valid service of process upon them individually, could not
furnish a lawful foundation for invoking the drastic provisions of Section 82
Cr.P.C. The relevant orders passed by the learned Trial Court, which
demonstrate the manner in which the proceedings came to be initiated against
the petitioners, are reproduced hereunder for facility of reference :-
17.1. In these orders also names of petitioners were no-where figured. It
is only accused No.2 and accused Nos.2 and 3 of respective complaints who
were declared proclaimed offenders and petitioners have not been arrayed as
accused in complaint cases. Orders are totally result of non-application of mind
on the part of the Court below and are cryptic.
17.2. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also failed to appreciate that
the petitioners had neither been arrayed as accused in the complaints nor
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23781-2018 & Connected cases -: 14 :-
summoned to face trial in their individual capacities. Even the order directing
service through proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was not preceded by any
specific judicial process issued against the petitioners by name. In these
circumstances, the invocation of Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners was
not merely irregular but fundamentally misconceived, since the said provision
presupposes the existence of a valid warrant against the particular person and a
judicially sustainable satisfaction that such person has absconded or is
concealing himself so as to evade execution thereof.
17.3. The entire sequence of proceedings, therefore, reflects a manifest
failure to adhere to the statutory safeguards and betrays a conspicuous absence
of the requisite application of judicial mind at successive stages. The petitioners
could not, in the absence of having been duly arraigned, summoned and
subjected to valid judicial process, have been proceeded against under Section
82 Cr.P.C. or ultimately declared proclaimed offenders. The proclamation
proceedings, consequently, stand vitiated in law and cannot be permitted to
operate against the petitioners.
18. Proclamation in the names of the petitioners was, therefore, issued
in patent disregard of the statutory scheme and the following foundational
infirmities, inter alia, render the entire exercise unsustainable in law:-
i. Petitioners were never arrayed as accused in the complaints.
ii. Petitioners were never ordered to be summoned as an accused to
face trial.
iii. Petitioners were never served with any summons nor any non-
bailable warrants were issued against the petitioners warranting a
finding of the Court that petitioners are concealing their presence
or are avoiding the service of warrants and summons.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23781-2018 & Connected cases -: 15 :-
18.1. Moreover, the statutory scheme embodied in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C.
assumes significance. Even otherwise, having regard to the nature of the
offences alleged in the present complaints, the petitioners could not have been
declared proclaimed offenders and, at the highest, could have been declared
only ‘proclaimed persons’, if the statutory conditions for such a declaration
were otherwise satisfied. This aspect assumes added significance in the present
case, where the petitioners were neither named nor arrayed as accused in the
complaints, no summoning order specifically identified or summoned them by
name, and no valid judicial process had been shown to have been issued against
them individually. The entire exercise of subjecting the petitioners to
proclamation proceedings and thereafter declaring them proclaimed offenders
was, therefore, undertaken in patent disregard of the statutory scheme of
Section 82 Cr.P.C. and cannot be sustained in law.
19. The continuation of the complaints and the consequential
proceedings against the petitioners would, therefore, amount to permitting
criminal prosecution to subsist in the absence of the foundational factual and
legal substratum necessary to sustain their prosecution. Such continuation, in
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, would constitute a
manifest abuse of the process of the Court and falls squarely within the well-
recognised parameters warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court to secure the ends of justice.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion and the cumulative effect of the
aforesaid infirmities, the petitions deserve to be allowed. Consequently, the
criminal proceedings, including the complaints, the summoning order and the
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23781-2018 & Connected cases -: 16 :-
subsequent orders whereby the petitioners were declared proclaimed offenders,
insofar as they relate to the present petitioners, are liable to be quashed.
21. Accordingly, this Court finds that the proceedings against the
present petitioners cannot be legally sustained. The orders dated 03.01.2018
declaring the petitioners proclaimed offenders are unsustainable for want of
compliance with the foundational requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. The
summoning order dated 07.11.2012, insofar as it purports to operate against the
present petitioners, does not disclose the requisite application of judicial mind
qua their individual identity, role or alleged culpability. Furthermore, the
complaints themselves do not furnish the necessary factual and statutory
foundation for fastening criminal liability upon the petitioners in their
individual capacities.
22. Consequently, the present petitions are allowed . The orders dated
03.01.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, whereby
the petitioners were declared proclaimed offenders, are hereby quashed and set
aside. The summoning order dated 07.11.2012, insofar as it concerns the
present petitioners, is also quashed and set aside.
23. As a necessary corollary, the criminal proceedings arising out of
Complaint No.41 dated 07.11.2012 and Complaint No.42 dated 20.11.2012,
including the said complaints themselves, are hereby quashed qua the present
petitioners. All consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against the
present petitioners shall also stand quashed.
24. It is, however, clarified that the benefit of this judgment shall
operate strictly qua the present petitioners. The criminal proceedings, if any,
against the remaining accused shall remain wholly unaffected by the present
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-23781-2018 & Connected cases -: 17 :-
judgment. The learned Trial Court shall take due note of this order and ensure
that no coercive process survives or is acted upon against the present petitioners
on the strength of the proceedings or orders quashed herein.
25. In view of the final disposal of the principal proceedings, all
pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, arising therefrom or ancillary
thereto, shall stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are
warranted in respect thereof.
26. Photocopy of this order be placed on each of the connected files for
record, ready reference and compliance, if any.
(VIRINDER AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
27.08.2026
S. Pathania/Gaurav Sorot
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.03 16:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document