Punjab-Haryana High Court
Altus Space Builders Pvt Ltd And Ors vs Greater Mohali Area Developement ... on 11 March, 2026
170 CRM-M-10587-2026 -l- 2OSS PHHE OST B06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-10587-2026 Date of decision: 11.03.2026 ALTUS SPACE BUILDERS PVT LTD AND ORS. ....Petitioners Versus GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY .... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate for the petitioners.
RUPINDERIJIT CHAHAL. J, (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, assailing the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 (Annexure P-1), whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Nagar has declared the petitioners as proclaimed persons and the summoning order dated 18.11.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, SAS Nagar, Mohali as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent has filed a false complaint bearing No. NACT-1230-2022 titled "Greater Mohali Area Development Authority vs. Altus Space Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." against the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners were neither duly served nor aware of the pendency of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. As a result, they could not appear before the learned trial Court on the scheduled dates and were consequently declared proclaimed persons vide order dated MOHIT 14.11.2024. 2026.03.13 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 170 CRM-M-10587-2026 -2-
3. He further argues that since petitioners were never served with any notice/warrant, hence, the impugned order has been passed without complying with the requirements of section 82 Cr.P.C. (section 84 BNSS). He further submits that the petitioners undertake to appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing. Hence, he prays for quashing of the said order.
4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners restricts his prayer only qua the quashing of the order dated 14.11.2024 (Annexure P-1) declaring the petitioners proclaimed person and further submits that he will challenge the complaint and summoning order via separate proceedings.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
6. The object behind issuance of non-bailable warrants or proclamation is only to secure the presence of the accused persons. In the present case, the petitioners have voluntarily approached this Court and undertaken to appear before the trial Court regularly.
7. The determination of whether the default of an accused is intentional or unintentional must be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Where it is established that the absence, or prolonged absence, of the accused is deliberate and intended to evade the process of law, appropriate costs may be imposed after considering the nature of the offence and the capacity of MOTT 5 10-ofhe accused to pay any cost.
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 170 CRM-M-10587-2026 -3-2026 PHHE G3 7806 ;
8. In the present case, apart from a bald assertion that requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. were not complied with before declaring petitioners as Proclaimed persons, no plausible ground has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners to support his contention.
However, still this court is inclined in taking a lenient view keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.01.2024 (Annexure P-1), declaring the petitioner proclaimed person, is set aside and the petitioners are directed to appear before the trial Court within four weeks from today, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to be deposited by the petitioners in Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER Chandigarh. Upon doing so, they shall be released on bail subject to furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
10. Besides, petitioners shall also file an undertaking/affidavit that they will appear in all future proceedings of the trial and proceedings shall not be delayed because of their conduct.
11. It is made clear that in case, petitioners fail to appear before the trial court within the stipulated period, this order shall be deemed to be vacated.
(RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 11.03.2026 JUDGE Mohit Bishnoi
i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No MOHIT 2026.03.13 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document