AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)
Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 16.01.2026 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sub-Division Hansi, in Complaint bearing CNR No. HRHSA10032872022 (CIS No. NACT-257 of 2022), whereby the petitioners have been declared proclaimed persons, as well as FIR No. 241 dated 23.04.2026 (Annexure P-8), registered under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860), at Police Station Hansi City, District Hansi, Haryana, on the ground that the impugned proclamation proceedings were undertaken without due service upon the petitioners, without issuance of requisite notice or communication to them, and without adherence to the mandatory procedure prescribed by law, thereby vitiating the consequential proceedings and rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law.
Briefly stated, the petitioners, residents of Haridwar, Uttarakhand, invoke Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. Petitioner No.1 holds wholesale fruit and vegetable licence No. WL-127 in the name of M/s Janta Fruit Company. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are brothers, while petitioner No.3 is son of petitioner No.2. They have no business or other nexus with Rinku, complainant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and contend that cheque No.000032 dated 11.04.2022 was never issued by petitioner No.1 and has been misused.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, despite institution of Complaint No. NACT-257 of 2022, no notice, summons or warrant was ever duly served upon the petitioners at their permanent address in Haridwar. The alleged service reports dated 18.05.2024 and 05.01.2025 merely record inquiries from third persons and do not demonstrate any genuine or effective effort to trace or serve the petitioners.
It is further submitted that, although the Trial Court directed issuance of proclamation vide order dated 01.07.2025, the impugned proclamation order dated 16.01.2026 was passed without establishing due compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 82 CrPC. The consequential FIR No. 0241 dated 23.04.2026 is also assailed on the ground that the petitioners’ address has been incorrectly shown as that of the Court itself, despite their authentic address being reflected in their Aadhaar documents and trade licence. The discrepancy in the description of the complainant and the incorrect address, according to learned counsel, further demonstrate non-application of mind and failure to undertake effective service. It is, accordingly, prayed that the impugned proclamation order be quashed.
At this stage, Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant and files power of attorney, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
Per contra, learned State counsel, duly assisted by counsel appearing for the complainant, opposes the present petition and submits that the impugned order suffers from neither any illegality nor any material infirmity warranting interference by this Court. It is contended that the Trial Court has passed a well-reasoned order upon due consideration of the factual matrix and the applicable legal principles. Dismissal of the present petition has, accordingly, been prayed for.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, this Court has perused the record.
The record reveals that the summons and warrants issued against the petitioners were neither duly served nor executed. The addresses furnished in the complaint were not found to be correct, which is also borne out from the notices sent through registered post under Section 138-B of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which were admittedly received back unserved. The reports pertaining to the warrants further disclose that the address mentioned therein could not be identified and that inquiries made from Sunil, a vegetable vendor, and Akram, a tea-shop owner, failed to yield any information regarding the whereabouts of petitioner No.2, Altaf Mansuri.
In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the record does not demonstrate that effective and meaningful efforts were undertaken to serve the petitioners at their correct address before resorting to the coercive process contemplated under Section 82 Cr.P.C. The unsuccessful attempts at service and the return of the registered notices unserved were material circumstances which required due consideration before recording the requisite satisfaction for issuance of proclamation. In the absence of such material demonstrating due compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the satisfaction recorded for proceeding against the petitioners as proclaimed persons cannot be sustained. The impugned order dated 16.01.2026 is, consequently, set aside.
The petitioners shall surrender before the Trial Court and move an application for grant of regular bail. In the event such application is filed, the same shall be considered in view of the aforesaid observations and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law.
Consequent upon final adjudication of the main matter, all pending interlocutory and ancillary applications stand disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, the substantive adjudication having extinguished the subject matter thereof.