IN THE 239 Mandeep Singh State of Punjab and CORAM : HON'BLE Present :- None Ms. Mr. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, The order dated 19.04.2016 Phagwara, whereby Complaint No.2054 Singh” registered 1860. 2. It is 18.01.2018, the which except on adjourned on the the remaining three the petitioner. The called twice. The for 08 years. 3. It seems THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-31177 Date of decision: VERSUS and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD None for the petitioner. Ms. Aiman J. Chishti, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Amandeep Singh Gill, Advocate ***** BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed 19.04.2016 passed by the Judicial whereby the petitioner was declared No.2054 dated 09.10.2013 titled as tered under Sections 499, 500, 306 is evident from the perusal of matter has been taken up on as on one occasion i.e. 21.01.2019 the request of counsel appearing on three occasions, there has been no The position remains unchanged The case pertains to the year 2016 seems that the counsel for the PUNJAB & HARYANA CHANDIGARH 31177-2016(O&M) decision: 06.05.2026 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Punjab. Advocate for respondent No.2. filed for seeking quashing of Judicial Magistrate First Class, proclaimed offender in case “Salu Mahant Vs. Mandeep 306 of the Indian Penal Code, of the ordersheets that since as many as 4 occasions out of 21.01.2019 when the matter was on behalf of the petitioner, on no representation on behalf of even today, despite the case 2016 and has remained pending petitioner has no interest in SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.11 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 239 CRM-M-31177-2016(O&M) pursuing the present petition, hence, the same is being examined on merits. 4. It has been averred in the present petition that the petitioner was summoned to face trial in Complaint No. 2054 dated 09.10.2013 vide summoning order dated 15.11.2014 (Annexure P-2). It has further been pleaded that, prior to the institution of the aforesaid complaint, respondent No.2 had been called to the police station pursuant to a complaint submitted by the petitioner. However, with the intervention of respectable persons of the locality, the dispute inter se between the parties was amicably settled and resolved. Despite the aforesaid settlement, respondent No.2 subsequently proceeded to institute the complaint in question against the petitioner. 5. It is further averred that the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person notwithstanding that notices were never served upon him, yet, proclamation proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were initiated against him vide order dated 19.04.2016. Hence, the proceedings were challenged on above ground. 6. Reply dated 04.01.2018 by way of an affidavit of Dyama Harish Kumar Om Parkash (IPS), Assistant Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Phagwara, District Kapurthala has already been filed on behalf of the respondent/State, wherein it is stated that proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against the petitioner and that he was subsequently declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 19.04.2016. It has further been asserted therein that the said proceedings as well as the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person do not suffer from any illegality or procedural infirmity. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.11 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 239 CRM-M-31177-2016(O&M) contends that there is nothing on record to suggest that the notices issued in the proceedings were not served upon the petitioner and that neither any illegality nor any procedural irregularity in the process adopted by the trial Court, while initiating proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and subsequently declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person, has been pleaded in the present petition or set out in the grounds of challenge. It is thus submitted that, in the absence of any specific averment or material demonstrating violation of the prescribed procedure, the impugned order does not warrant interference by this Court. 8. I find that the facts as pleaded do not lay any foundation for or disclose any circumstances to suggest that the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person was passed without adhering to the procedure prescribed under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or procedural impropriety warranting interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 9. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 06.05.2026 JUDGE Sumit Gusain Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2026.05.11 19:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document