Manjeet Singh vs Manoj Kumar

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J

Aggrieved by orders dated 02.05.2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, and 29.08.2019, passed by learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Mandi, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., with a prayer to quash and set-aside

both the above orders.

Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that Shri Manoj Kumar (respondent herein) filed a complaint under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner and he, on being summoned, appeared before the learned Trial Court. On 23.10.2017, when the case

was listed for complainant’s (respondent herein) evidence, the petitioner did not appear. Resultantly, on 09.01.2018 bailable warrants were issued

against him, which were successfully executed, but again he did not appear before the learned Trial Court. On 19.04.2018 the learned Trial Court

issued Non Bailable Warrants against the petitioner, which were not executed, so the learned Trial Court, by medium of impugned order, dated

29.08.2019, ordered service of the petitioner through proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., which was assailed by the petitioner, by filing a revision

before the learned Revisional Court below, though unsuccessfully, hence the present petition for quashing and setting-aside both the impugned orders

passed by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Revisional Court.

Heared. Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner remained unaware about the proceedings, as he was

never served and he was out of station where he fell ill and was suffering from typhoid. He has further argued that the petitioner only came to know

about the instant proceedings when proclamation was issued against him. Lastly, he has submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to appear

before the learned Trial Court as and when directed by this Court and also willing to co-operate for the early disposal of the complaint pending against

him.

Complainant (respondent herein) was duly served, but no one has put in appearance on his behalf.

The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force, as it emanates from the records that the petitioner was served through

summons and even he appeared before the learned Trial Court in the complaint filed by the complainant. So, the contention that the petitioner was

never served, is hollow and rejected out-rightly.

Now, the second contention, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner was out of station, where he fell ill, as he was

suffering from typhoid, and he only came to know about the proceedings in question, when proclamation was issued against him, has some weight, as

the same has slight documentary support, in the shape of prescription slips etc. Though, this medical record is not of such a scale to force this Court to

allow this petition. However, after examining the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that in case the instant petition is not

allowed, the interest of justice would be thwarted. This Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would only be sub-served, in case the

petitioner is given a chance to defend his cause by allowing him to join the proceedings pending against him in the learned Trial Court.

In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on or before 26.07.2021,

alongwith a copy of this order, and in case the petitioner appears before the learned Trial Court on or before the aforesaid date, the learned Trial

Court shall release him on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond to the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety of the like

amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, with an undertaking to appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date of hearing

and the learned Trial Court will proceed with the complaint in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.

Needless to say that in case the petitioner defies the mandate of this Court, the learned Trial Court is free to proceed in accordance with law.