Gajendra Pal Singh Malik v. State Of Haryana And Another
CRM-M-41181-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-41181-2025 Date of Decision: 10.12.2025 Gajendra Pal Singh Malik ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ......Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shiva Khurmi, D.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.
*** ANOOP CHITKARA J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 28.03.2010 Gurgaon City, 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC District Gurugram 1.
Seeking quashing of order dated 15.09.2022 passed by JMIC, Gurugram whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in the FIR captioned above, the petitioner has come up before this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 2.
On the last date of hearing, respondent No.2 who is complainant in the main FIR was present in person and states that he never wanted to send his father in prison and based on such statement, both the petitioner as well as respondent no.2 were called for today. 3.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner was on bail but during COVID-19 pandemic, proceedings before the Court were not in motion due to which he could not appear before the trial Court. Later on, when the proceedings resumed before the trial Court, he was ordered to be summoned through bailable warrants, however the address mentioned in the police file and bail bonds furnished by the petitioner earlier was not correct as petitioner has shifted his residence at House No.203, Sector 5 Sikandra, Agra (UP), however JYOTI SHARMA 2025.12.11 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-41181-2025 address given in the challan was different, due to this, warrant issued to the petitioner received back with the report "not traceable in the locality-whereabouts not known" and has referred to Annexure P-20. The absence before the trial Court was not intentional, as such prayed for setting aside of impugned order.
4.
Since the main matter between the parties i.e. complainant who is author of FIR captioned above has already been settled, as such no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.
5.
Given above, the present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 15.09.2022 declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person is quashed and set aside. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 10.12.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.
JYOTI SHARMA 2025.12.11 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh