The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed multiple orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur and Pehowa, declaring several former Directors of Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. as proclaimed persons under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The batch of cases arose from business transactions between M/s Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. and M/s Robin Trading Company, involving unpaid dues from the financial years 2014–2017. Various cheques issued by the accused firm were dishonoured due to insufficient funds, following which criminal complaints were filed by the respective complainants.
One of the petitioners, a U.S. citizen and former Non-Executive Director of the accused firm, challenged the non-bailable and proclamation orders, arguing that (in some cases) that
- he was an investor nominee non-executive director and not responsible for the day to day business of the company.
- he had resignation from the position of the non-executive Director much before the dishonouring of the cheque;
- the individual was not an authorised signatory or an authorised representative of the Company;
- the summons / bailable warrants / Proclaimed offenders notices were never served upon the individual and were served on the address of the Company, despite the Director’s contact details being publicly available via the Ministry of Corporate Affairs portal.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar held that the trial court had acted improperly by issuing non-baliable orders/ proclamation orders without first attempting to serve summons or bailable warrants, or recording satisfaction that the accused was absconding or concealing himself. Citing the precedent in Major Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406, the Court emphasized that failure to comply with procedural safeguards under Section 82 CrPC rendered the orders illegal.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the proclamation orders and all subsequent proceedings arising from them, reaffirming that curtailment of personal liberty must be in consonance with Article 21 of the Constitution.
Appearances:
Mr. Rohit Khanna, Mr. Kamal Shankar, Dr Abhimanyu Chopra, Mr. Rohit Chandel, Mr. Shaurya, Advocates for the petitioner (s) in all the cases.
Mr. Shubham Mangla, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 in all the cases
Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab for respondent No.2
Mr. Harkesh Kumar, AAG, Haryana for respondent No.3