High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 01 SHI CK 0270

Kashmir Singh vs State Of H.P. & Another

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 19 January 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anoop Chitkara, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
CR. MMO No.27 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 362 words

Anoop Chitkara, J

1.

The petitioner, who was declared as proclaimed offender for intentionally delaying the trial has come up before this Court for setting aside the

proclamation order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Mandi, in case (NI Act) No.197-III/17/2012, titled Suresh Sharma

versus Kashmir Singh & Another.

2.

Notice. Mr. Bhupender Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appears and accepts service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1.

3.

Mr. Bhupender Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that since the matter pertains to proclamation and it is between the Court and

the accused, as such no reply would be

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? required on behalf of the State. He further submits that to ensure that the

accused does not indulge in delaying tactics as such he be directed to deposit some amount in terms of Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Be that as it may. It is for the complainant to file an application, in case he wants such money to be deposited under Section 143 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act.

4.

The matter is summons case and deals with Negotiable Instruments Act, which is primarily an economic offence.

5.

Given the fact that the complaint pertains to the year 2010 and the petitioner delayed the same considerably, the petition is allowed and the

proclamation order is set aside, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.25,000/- as costs to the complainant on or before 22nd February, 2021,

on which date the petitioner-accused shall appear before the trial Court. It is clarified that this costs shall not be treated as part of compensation, in

case the accused ultimately stands convicted. This order shall ceases to have any force of law, in the the petitioner either fails to appear on 22nd

February, 2021 or does not pay the amount of costs as mentioned above. It is further clarified that in case the petitioner further indulges in any

delaying tactics, it shall be viewed seriously. The accused is also directed to furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. Pending

application(s), if any, are closed.