CRMMO/1113/2026 on 14 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 1113 of 2026 Reserved on: 7.10.2026 Date of Decision: 14.10.2026. Sanjay Sharma …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …. Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent No.1-State : Mr Pawan Kumar Nadda,

Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the order dated 06.08.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court), in Complaint Case titled Rakesh Rana vs. Sanjay Sharma, vide which the petitioner was declared a

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

proclaimed person, and directions were issued to the police to arrest him. It has been asserted that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The allegations made in the complaint are false, and the petitioner has a substantial defence on merits. The cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement that the signature differs. The petitioner could not appear before the Court as he is a contractor and is required to remain on tour at different places from time to time. He was not available at the address where the proclamation was published. The petitioner does not want to evade the process of law. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

2. Mr Narender Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the order passed by the learned Trial Court has not fulfilled the requirements of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. since the proclamation was not read at a public place. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be granted protection. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in

Ramesh Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & Anr. 2019:HHC:372 in support of his submission.

3. Mr Pawan Kumar Nadda, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No. 1/State, submitted that the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person by a competent court. He can surrender before the learned Trial Court and seek bail. There is no justification to grant protection. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

4. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

5. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Trial Court shows that the learned Trial Court has recorded its satisfaction that the proclamation had been published as per law. Section 82(3) of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 84(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides that a statement in writing made by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified date in the manner specified in clause (i) of sub-section (2) shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with. Therefore, the submission that the proclamation was not duly published cannot be accepted. There is an irrebuttable presumption of correctness attached to the record, and once the Court has recorded that the proclamation was duly published, it has to be presumed that it was so published. Hence, the submission that the proclamation was not published as per law will not help the petitioner.

6. Ramesh Sharma (supra) deals with the granting of bail to the person who was declared a proclaimed offender. Since this is not a bail petition, the cited judgment does not apply to the present case. In any case, it was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of M.P., (2026) 6 SCC 216: (2026) 2 SCC (Cri) 94: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 205 that granting anticipatory bail to an absconding accused sets a bad precedent. It was observed at page 231:

65. It is apposite to mention that granting the relief of anticipatory bail to an absconding accused person sets a bad precedent and sends a message that the law-abiding co- accused persons who stood trial were wrong to diligently attend the process of trial and further, incentivises people to evade the process of law with impunity.

7. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which deals with the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. It has not been explained as to why the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court is necessary, or that there is any abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner has himself mentioned in the petition that he was not available at the address, and he had absconded. Being an absconder, he cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court, which is to be exercised sparingly, and certainly not in a situation like this.

8. No other point was urged.

9. In view of the above, the present petition fails and is dismissed.

10. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.

(Rakesh Kainthla)

Judge 14th October, 2026 (Chander)