CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----44623 44623 44623 44623 156 156 156 156 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Malkeet Singh State of Punjab Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Date of Date of Date of Uploading: Uploading: Uploading: Uploading: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL seeking quashing of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ferozepur declared as proclaimed for offence punishable under Sections 302, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Mamdot, District Ferozepur 2. order, whereby the petitioner illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. submitted that were issued against the petitioner 17.03.2023, 44623 44623 44623 44623----2025 2025 2025 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----44623 44623 44623 44623----2025 2025 2025 2025 Malkeet Singh versus Punjab Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: July 07 July 07 July 07 July 07,,,, 2026 2026 2026 2026 Uploading: Uploading: Uploading: Uploading: July 07 July 07 July 07 July 07, , , , 2026 2026 2026 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Piyush Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. , J. , J. , J. (Oral) (Oral) (Oral) (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section quashing of the impugned order dated Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ferozepur, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender, in case FIR No. for offence punishable under Sections 302, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Mamdot, District Ferozepur Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. submitted that vide order dated 04.02.2023 (Annexure P were issued against the petitioner and other accused 17.03.2023, as the non-bailable warrants remained unexecuted, therefore, 1111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2025 2025 2025 2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL for the petitioner. Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 the impugned order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the learned , whereby, the petitioner has been FIR No.184 dated 20.12.2022, registered for offence punishable under Sections 302, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Mamdot, District Ferozepur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned has been declared a proclaimed offender, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has vide order dated 04.02.2023 (Annexure P-3), non-bailable warrants and other accused for 17.03.2023. Thereafter, on bailable warrants remained unexecuted, therefore, 1111 .Petitioner ….Respondent of the BNSS, 2023 passed by the learned , whereby, the petitioner has been dated 20.12.2022, registered and Sections 25, Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned , is wholly Learned counsel has bailable warrants Thereafter, on bailable warrants remained unexecuted, therefore, MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.07 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2222 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----44623 44623 44623 44623----2025 2025 2025 2025 proclamation was issued against the petitioner and other accused for 15.05.2023. Learned counsel has further submitted that on 13.04.2023 (Annexure P-5), statement of serving official was recorded, whereby, he stated that he had visited the house of all the accused, including the petitioner, but their houses were found locked. Thereafter, he affixed one copy of proclamation outside the houses of all accused, one at the public place of village and one on the notice board of the Court below. Learned counsel has submitted that firstly the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner remained unexecuted, therefore, the proclamation was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. It has been further contended that even the statement of the serving official, who had to execute the proclamation against the petitioner, reveals that the proclamation was not read at some conspicuous place where the petitioner was residing and, thus, there was clear violation of provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender has been passed mechanically without proper compliance of mandatory provisions as enshrined under Section 82 Cr. P.C. Learned counsel has stated that no such satisfaction was recorded by the Court below to the effect that the petitioner had absconded or was deliberately avoiding his arrest. 2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide judgment dated 02.12.2024 (Annexure P-9), other co-accused have already been acquitted of the charges framed against them. On the basis of these submissions, grant of petition in hand is entreated for. 3. Learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the short reply by way of an affidavit dated 10.09.2025 (already on record) has opposed the present petition. While refuting the case set up by the petitioner, detailed arguments were advanced on merits, contending that the offence alleged MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.07 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 3333 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----44623 44623 44623 44623----2025 2025 2025 2025 against the petitioner is serious in nature. Furthermore, it has been submitted that the petitioner failed to cause appearance before the Court below. It has been further submitted that non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner remained unexecuted, therefore, learned Court below issued proclamation against the petitioner, but still the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court. Learned State counsel has asserted that the statement of the serving official was recorded and thereafter, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender, vide impugned order. It has been submitted that the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender after following the procedure as laid-down under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 in letter and spirit and no discrepancy whatsoever is forthcoming from the records of the case. Accordingly, dismissal of the instant petition has been prayed for. 3.1. Learned State counsel has also submitted that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Harban Singh, Gurmej Singh, Lakhwinder Singh alias Bobby, Darshan Singh and Angrej Singh have been acquitted of the charges framed against them by giving them the benefit of doubt, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur on 02.12.2024. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully perused the record of the case. 5. The law is well settled that no person can be declared a proclaimed offender/person unless the procedure prescribed under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is strictly and meticulously adhered to. It is trite that the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature, and any non-compliance thereof vitiates the entire proceedings. Furthermore, Section 82(1) of the Cr. P.C. clearly provides that before issuing a proclamation requiring a person to appear, the Court must have reason to believe that such person has absconded or is MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.07 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 4444 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----44623 44623 44623 44623----2025 2025 2025 2025 concealing himself so that the warrant cannot be executed. Further, the proclamation must specify a date not less than 30 days from the date of publication for the accused to appear before the Court. Perusal of the record shows that non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner remained unserved/ unexecuted. Thereafter, vide order dated 17.03.2023, proclamation was issued for 15.05.2023. On 13.04.2023, statement of serving official was also recorded and it has been pleaded that the proclamation was not read at some conspicuous place where the petitioner was residing. Thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 15.05.2023, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender. The law is well-settled that once non-bailable warrants remained unserved/ unexecuted and there is no satisfaction recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to absconding and concealment, the issuance of proclamation, straightway in itself is bad in law. Failure to adhere to the provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. before declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender vitiates the subsequent order declaring the accused as a proclaimed offender. 6. This Court finds that the course adopted by the Court below is in clear contravention of and antithetical to, the provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court below has committed a manifest illegality by issuing and acting upon the proclamation without ensuring compliance with the mandatory statutory requirements. The learned Court below, while declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender, failed to record the requisite judicial satisfaction regarding due execution of the proclamation and proceeded in a mechanical and perfunctory manner, rendering the impugned order legally unsustainable. Such an order being violative of mandatory provisions of law, cannot be sustained. Further, Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 reads as under: MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.07 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 5555 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----44623 44623 44623 44623----2025 2025 2025 2025 ““““82. Proclamation for person absconding. 82. Proclamation for person absconding. 82. Proclamation for person absconding. 82. Proclamation for person absconding. - (1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. (2) The proclamation shall be published as follows: - (i)(a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides; (b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village; (c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the court-house; (ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides. (3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, 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, and that the proclamation was published on such day. [(4) Where a proclamation published under sub-section (1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under Sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459, or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect. (5) The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration made by the Court under sub-section (4) as they apply to the proclamation published under sub-section (1).]”””” 7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with invocation of the provision of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against an accused in the case of ‘Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319’ Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319’ Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319’ Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319’, held as under: ““““9. The essential requirements of section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for issuance and publication of proclamation against an absconder and declaring him as proclaimed person/offender may be summarized as under:- (i) Prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court is sine qua non for issuance and publication of the proclamation and the Court has to first issue warrant of arrest against the person concerned. (See Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi: 2008 Crl. J. 2561). (ii) There must be a report before the Court that the person against whom warrant was issued had absconded or had been concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest could not be executed against him. However, the Court is not bound to take evidence in this regard before issuing a Proclamation under section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. (See Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561). (iii) The Court cannot issue the Proclamation as a matter of course because the Police is asking for it. The Court must be prima facie satisfied that the person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence. (See BishundayalMahton and others v. Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366 and Devender Singh Negi v. State of U.P. : 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783). MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.07 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 6666 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----44623 44623 44623 44623----2025 2025 2025 2025 (iv) The requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the proclamation requiring such person to appear on such date at the specified place. Such date must not be less than 30 clear days from the date of issuance and publication of the proclamation. (See Gurappa Gugal and others v. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali v. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (CRIMINAL) 339). (v) Where the period between issuance and publication of the proclamation and the specified date of hearing is less than thirty days, the accused cannot be declared a proclaimed person/offender and the proclamation has to be issued and published again. (See Dilbagh Singh v. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) RCR (CRIMINAL) 166 and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (CRIMINAL) 550) (vi) The Proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. For publication the proclamation has to be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house. The three sub-clauses (a)- (c) in section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 are conjunctive and not disjunctive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are proved. (See Pawan Kumar Gupta v. The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368). Where the Court so orders a copy of the proclamation has to be additionally published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which the accused ordinarily resides. Advisably, proclamation has to be issued with four copies so that one each of the three copies of the proclamation may be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides, to some conspicuous place of such town or village and to some conspicuous part of the Courthouse and report regarding publication may be made on the fourth copy of the proclamation. Additional copy will be required where the proclamation is also required to be published in the newspaper. (vii) Statement of the serving officer has to be recorded by the Court as to the date and mode of publication of the proclamation. (See Birad Dan v. State: 1958 CriLJ 965). (viii) The Court issuing the proclamation has to make a statement in writing in its order that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day in a manner specified in section 82(2)(i) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. Such statement in writing by the Court is declared to be conclusive evidence that the requirements of Section 82 have been complied with and that the proclamation was published on such day. (See Birad Dan v. State: 1958 CriLJ 965). (xi) The conditions specified in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for the publication of a Proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. Any non- compliance therewith cannot be cured as an 'irregularity' and renders the Proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity. (See Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu v. State of U.P. and another: 1994 CriLJ 1783 and Pal Singh v. The State: 1955 CriLJ 318).”””” 8. It is by now a settled principle of law that prior to issuing a proclamation under Section 82 Cr. P.C., the Court is required to record its satisfaction that the accused, against whom such proclamation is sought, is absconding or is concealing himself/ herself with the intention to evade arrest. This foundational and jurisdictional requirement is conspicuously absent in the present case. A perusal of the impugned order dated 15.05.2023 reveals that no such MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.07 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 7777 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----44623 44623 44623 44623----2025 2025 2025 2025 satisfaction has been recorded by the Court below, nor does the record disclose any material which could justify an inference that the petitioner had absconded or was deliberately avoiding his appearance before the Court. 9. The provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, having serious civil and criminal ramifications qua the rights of an accused, particularly affecting his liberty and participation in trial proceedings, cannot be invoked in a casual or cavalier manner. The mandatory requirement of recording satisfaction that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself/ herself so that the warrant of arrest cannot be executed, as embodied under Section 82 Cr.P.C., must be scrupulously complied with on the basis of cogent and relevant material available on record. Any non-adherence to this statutory mandate while declaring an accused as a proclaimed offender/person vitiates the proclamation proceedings in their entirety. 10. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by permitting the criminal proceedings to continue against the petitioner, which are founded upon an illegal and procedurally flawed proclamation. It is, therefore, a fit and appropriate case for the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS / Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., so as to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. 11. In view of the above findings, and considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present petition is allowed allowed allowed allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the learned JMIC, Ferozepur, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender, is hereby quashed quashed quashed quashed qua the petitioner. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.07 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 8888 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----44623 44623 44623 44623----2025 2025 2025 2025 There is no gainsaying that observations made in the instant order are limited to the issue in lis, namely, the petitioner being declared as Proclaimed offender, and shall not be construed as observations on the merits of the case. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ((((SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL)))) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE July 07 July 07 July 07 July 07,,,, 2026 2026 2026 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.07 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment