CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----73140 73140 73140 73140 154 154 154 154 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 Rajni Pandey State of U.T., Chandigarh Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: Present: Present: Present: Present:- SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL seeking quashing/ setting aside of the impugned order dated learned JMIC, person, in complaint case 1881 bearing number NACT/18811/2019 Pandey” and all consequential proceedings arising 2. order, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. submitted that warrants with regard to the complaint case in question Jhansi, whereas question, i.e., 73140 73140 73140 73140----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----73140 73140 73140 73140----2025 2025 2025 2025 Rajni Pandey versus U.T., Chandigarh and another Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: July 23 July 23 July 23 July 23,,,, 2026 2026 2026 2026 Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: Date of Uploading: July July July July 22224444,,,, 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. Gaurav Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shubham Mangla, A.P.P. U.T., Chandigarh. None for respondent No.2. ***** ***** ***** ***** SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL, J. , J. , J. , J. (Oral) (Oral) (Oral) (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section seeking quashing/ setting aside of the impugned order dated JMIC, Chandigarh, whereby, petitioner was declared as proclaimed complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, bearing number NACT/18811/2019 titled as “ and all consequential proceedings arising Learned counsel for the petitioner has contende order, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. submitted that the petitioner did not receive any with regard to the complaint case in question whereas, the same were issued at the address question, i.e., House No.173, Airforce Station, Gwalior, 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 ….Respondents 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. Shubham Mangla, A.P.P. U.T., Chandigarh. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing/ setting aside of the impugned order dated 08.01.2024 passed by , petitioner was declared as proclaimed Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, titled as “Varinder Singh versus Rajni and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has the petitioner did not receive any notice, bailable/ non-bailable with regard to the complaint case in question at her correct address at address given in the complaint in House No.173, Airforce Station, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh. It has 1111 .Petitioner s 528 of the BNSS, 2023 passed by , petitioner was declared as proclaimed Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Varinder Singh versus Rajni d that the impugned , is wholly Learned counsel has bailable correct address at in the complaint in It has MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.24 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 2222 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----73140 73140 73140 73140----2025 2025 2025 2025 been contended that owing to the nature of job of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner kept on shifting at different places with her husband. It has been contended that as per order dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure P-2), bailable warrants issued were received back with the report that no such person is residing at the given address and complainant/ respondent No.2 was directed to furnish fresh address of the petitioner. Thereafter, the position remained the same on 25.07.2023 and non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that as per order dated 06.09.2023, upon submission having been made by complainant/ respondent No.2 and presuming that the petitioner was intentionally avoiding her appearance, learned Court below issued proclamation against the petitioner for 08.01.2024. Learned counsel has submitted that ultimately, vide the impugned order dated 08.01.2024, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person. It has been submitted that the petitioner only came to know about the pendency of the case against her when she was arrested from her matrimonial home on 29.09.2025 in relation to another case under Section 138 of the NI Act. 2.1. Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person 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 has absconded or was deliberately avoiding his arrest. On the basis of these submissions, grant of petition in hand is entreated for. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent – U.T., Chandigarh 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 against MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.24 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 3333 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----73140 73140 73140 73140----2025 2025 2025 2025 the petitioner is serious in nature. Furthermore, it has been submitted that the petitioner deliberately failed to cause appearance before the Court below. It has been further submitted that the petitioner had full knowledge of the pendency of the case against her and she had intentionally avoided the service of warrants issued against her, therefore, learned Court below was constrained to issue proclamation against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent – U.T., Chandigarh has further asserted that the statement of the serving official was recorded and thereafter, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person, vide the impugned order. It has been submitted that the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person 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 counsel for the respondent – U.T., Chandigarh has also referred the compliance report dated 25.02.2026, wherein it has been stated, in Paras-4 & 5 thereof, as under: ““““4. That thereafter Inspector Ramesh Kumar contacted Respondent no.2 Varinder Singh on mobile number 9216160037. Varinder Singh confirmed that he had been residing at House No. 53, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh from the year 2007 to 2022 and that he is presently residing at House No. E-803. Ravindra Enclave, Baltana, Zirakpur, Punjab. 5. That respondent no. 2 Varinder Singh was duly informed about the pendency of the present petition as well as the next date of hearing. A copy of the order dated 11.02.2026 and the petition was also shared with him through WhatsApp on his mobile number 9216160037. He assured that he shall appear before the Hon'ble Court on the next date of hearing. The copy of the compliance report dated 19.02.2026 is annexed herewith as Annexure R-2.”””” 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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.24 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 4444 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----73140 73140 73140 73140----2025 2025 2025 2025 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 concealing himself/herself 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 notices, bailable/ non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner at the address given in the complaint in question at Madhya Pradesh, whereas, it has been pleaded that given the nature of the job of her husband, the petitioner kept on moving at different places and her correct address was at Jhansi at the relevant time. Perusal of the orders dated 05.04.2023 and 25.07.2023 nowhere reveals that the bailable warrants were served upon the petitioner. The order dated 06.09.2023 also shows that on the oral submission of learned counsel for the complainant, the trial Court presumed that the petitioner had full knowledge of the case and was intentionally avoiding the appearance, hence, proclamation was issued against the petitioner for 08.01.2024. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 08.01.2024, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person. The law is well-settled that once warrants of arrest remained 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 person vitiates the subsequent order declaring the accused as a proclaimed person. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.24 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 5555 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----73140 73140 73140 73140----2025 2025 2025 2025 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 person, 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: ““““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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.24 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 6666 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----73140 73140 73140 73140----2025 2025 2025 2025 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 Bishundayal Mahton and others v. Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366 and Devender Singh Negi v. State of U.P. : 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783). (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 MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.24 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 7777 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----73140 73140 73140 73140----2025 2025 2025 2025 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. 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/ her 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. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.24 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 8888 CRM CRM CRM CRM----M M M M----73140 73140 73140 73140----2025 2025 2025 2025 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 08.01.2024 passed by learned JMIC, Chandigarh, whereby, petitioner was declared as proclaimed person, along with all other consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed quashed quashed quashed qua the petitioner. 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 person, 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 23 July 23 July 23 July 23,,,, 2026 2026 2026 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.24 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment