CRM-M-62489 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 131 Kewal Ram State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. 528 of Bhar 31.03.2009 Magistrate First Class, arising out of FIR No. 324 and 34 of IPC at petitioner had been declared a proclaimed 2. restricted his arguments only to the extent of quashing the impugned order, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender. 3. grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court. However, he absented himself on 62489-2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Kewal Ram Versus State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 31.03.2009 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar in case titled as arising out of FIR No. 133 dated 24.09.2005 324 and 34 of IPC at Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his arguments only to the extent of quashing the impugned order, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned case was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court. However, he absented himself on 22.12.2008, consequent to which, his bail was cancelled and non -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-62489-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.05.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section tiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of order dated , passed by the Court of learned Judicial case titled as State vs. Dharam Pal etc. 24.09.2005, registered under Sections 326, Goraya, District Jalandhar, whereby the offender. he very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his arguments only to the extent of quashing the impugned order, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been case. The petitioner was on bail and was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court. However, he absented , consequent to which, his bail was cancelled and non 2024 (O&M) 01.05.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section for quashing of order dated Judicial Dharam Pal etc., 326, whereby the he very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his arguments only to the extent of quashing the impugned order, the grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been was on bail and was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court. However, he absented , consequent to which, his bail was cancelled and non- MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.01 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-62489 bailable warrants were issued against him. Subsequently, the petitioner could not appear before the Court as he was issued by the More so, t following the proper procedure prescribed under Section 82 ready to join the Court proceedings. between th filed before this Court seeking quashing of the FIR, in which the parties were directed to get their statement recorded before the learned trial Court but the same was later on dismissed on acc in India. The said compromise is still subsisting and the petitioner has again filed a petition, bearing question, whereby notice of motion has been issued and th pending. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to appear before the learned trial Court and join the proceedings. impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. resisted the petition by submitting that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the petitioner has rightly been declared a proclaimed was running away from the process of Court. I is liable to be dismissed. 5. length and have also gone through the material placed on record. 6. learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed 62489-2024 (O&M) bailable warrants were issued against him. Subsequently, the petitioner could not appear before the Court as he was never served with any notice/warrants issued by the learned trial Court and was declar More so, the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person without following the proper procedure prescribed under Section 82 ready to join the Court proceedings. The matter was initially compromised between the parties and a petition, bearing number filed before this Court seeking quashing of the FIR, in which the parties were directed to get their statement recorded before the learned trial Court but the same was later on dismissed on account of the fact that the petitioner was not The said compromise is still subsisting and the petitioner has again filed a petition, bearing CRM-M-55324-2024 question, whereby notice of motion has been issued and th pending. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to appear before the learned trial Court and join the proceedings. impugned order is liable to be set aside. Per contra, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has resisted the petition by submitting that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the petitioner has rightly been declared a proclaimed was running away from the process of Court. I is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the and have also gone through the material placed on record. On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised b learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed -2- bailable warrants were issued against him. Subsequently, the petitioner could never served with any notice/warrants and was declared a proclaimed offender he petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person without following the proper procedure prescribed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. He is The matter was initially compromised e parties and a petition, bearing number CRM-M-21135-2012, was filed before this Court seeking quashing of the FIR, in which the parties were directed to get their statement recorded before the learned trial Court but the ount of the fact that the petitioner was not The said compromise is still subsisting and the petitioner has again 2024, seeking quashing of the FIR in question, whereby notice of motion has been issued and the petition is pending. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to appear before the learned trial Court and join the proceedings. Hence, it is urged that the , learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has resisted the petition by submitting that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the petitioner has rightly been declared a proclaimed offender as he was running away from the process of Court. It is, thus, urged that the petition I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable and have also gone through the material placed on record. On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised b learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed bailable warrants were issued against him. Subsequently, the petitioner could never served with any notice/warrants ed a proclaimed offender. he petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person without He is The matter was initially compromised , was filed before this Court seeking quashing of the FIR, in which the parties were directed to get their statement recorded before the learned trial Court but the ount of the fact that the petitioner was not The said compromise is still subsisting and the petitioner has again , seeking quashing of the FIR in e petition is pending. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to appear before the Hence, it is urged that the , learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has resisted the petition by submitting that there is no infirmity in the impugned as he t is, thus, urged that the petition at considerable On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.01 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-62489 by the learned Section 82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed dated 31.03.2009 with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 7. copies of zim 06.02.2009 received back unserved, proclamation aga that the learned trial Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has not recorded its proper satisfaction that was concealing himself so that the w be executed, despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. Reliance upon Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 8. proclamation was issued for 03.03.2009, requiring the petitioner to cause his appearance before the learned trial Court on that very date. Hence, the petitioner was not granted mandatory peri Court. Even otherwise, a perusal of the record shows that the proclamation was executed only on 28.02.2009, requiring the petitioner to appear before the Court on 03.03.2009, which was not as per the provisions of Section Cr.P.C. Hence, the same was in clear violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., as per which, a specified time of not less than 30 days is 62489-2024 (O&M) learned trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed offender, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order 31.03.2009 suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. After going through the material placed on reco copies of zimni orders passed by the learned 06.02.2009, since the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were received back unserved, the learned trial Court had ordered for issuance of proclamation against him for 03.03.2009. that the learned trial Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has not recorded its proper satisfaction that that the petitioner had absconded or was concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. Reliance Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. It is further revealed on perusal of order dated 06.02.2009 that proclamation was issued for 03.03.2009, requiring the petitioner to cause his appearance before the learned trial Court on that very date. Hence, the petitioner was not granted mandatory peri Court. Even otherwise, a perusal of the record shows that the proclamation was executed only on 28.02.2009, requiring the petitioner to appear before the Court on 03.03.2009, which was not as per the provisions of Section Hence, the same was in clear violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., as per which, a specified time of not less than 30 days is -3- trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a m of the considered opinion that the impugned order suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. After going through the material placed on record as well as learned trial Court, it is revealed that on bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were trial Court had ordered for issuance of . A bare perusal of this order shows that the learned trial Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has that the petitioner had absconded or arrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. Reliance in this regard can be placed Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561. It is further revealed on perusal of order dated 06.02.2009 that proclamation was issued for 03.03.2009, requiring the petitioner to cause his appearance before the learned trial Court on that very date. Hence, the petitioner was not granted mandatory period of 30 days to appear before the Court. Even otherwise, a perusal of the record shows that the proclamation was executed only on 28.02.2009, requiring the petitioner to appear before the Court on 03.03.2009, which was not as per the provisions of Section 82 of Hence, the same was in clear violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., as per which, a specified time of not less than 30 days is trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a m of the considered opinion that the impugned order suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed rd as well as the revealed that on bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were trial Court had ordered for issuance of A bare perusal of this order shows that the learned trial Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has that the petitioner had absconded or arrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of the in this regard can be placed It is further revealed on perusal of order dated 06.02.2009 that proclamation was issued for 03.03.2009, requiring the petitioner to cause his appearance before the learned trial Court on that very date. Hence, the od of 30 days to appear before the Court. Even otherwise, a perusal of the record shows that the proclamation was executed only on 28.02.2009, requiring the petitioner to appear before the 82 of Hence, the same was in clear violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., as per which, a specified time of not less than 30 days is MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.01 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-62489 required to be given to the accused from the date of publishing such proclamation which is mandator placed upon 826 and Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339. 9. view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities petition is allowed and the impugned order dated passed by the case titled as 24.09.2005, registered under Sections 326, 324 and 34 of IPC at Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar, proclaimed therefrom. 10. Court proceedings within a period of shall release him on bail, subject to his furnishing fresh personal/surety bonds to its satisfaction. 11. Court, his arrest 12. the learned to be dismissed. 62489-2024 (O&M) required to be given to the accused from the date of publishing such proclamation which is mandatory in nature. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339. Accordingly, in view of the discussion as made above iew of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities petition is allowed and the impugned order dated passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, case titled as State vs. Dharam Pal etc., arising out of FIR No. 133 dated 24.09.2005, registered under Sections 326, 324 and 34 of IPC at Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender, is quashed with all consequential Keeping in view the fact that Court proceedings, he is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of 15 days from today and on doing so, the learned trial Cou shall release him on bail, subject to his furnishing fresh personal/surety bonds to its satisfaction. Till the appearance of the petitioner before the Court, his arrest shall remain stayed. It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before learned trial Court within the stipulated time to be dismissed. -4- required to be given to the accused from the date of publishing such y in nature. Reliance in this regard can be Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339. Accordingly, in view of the discussion as made above and also in iew of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.03.2009 (Annexure P Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar in , arising out of FIR No. 133 dated 24.09.2005, registered under Sections 326, 324 and 34 of IPC at Police whereby the petitioner had been declared a , is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is ready to join the is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court from today and on doing so, the learned trial Cou shall release him on bail, subject to his furnishing fresh personal/surety bonds Till the appearance of the petitioner before the learned trial It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before the stipulated time, this petition shall be deemed required to be given to the accused from the date of publishing such y in nature. Reliance in this regard can be State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ and also in , the present 31.03.2009 (Annexure P-2), Jalandhar in , arising out of FIR No. 133 dated 24.09.2005, registered under Sections 326, 324 and 34 of IPC at Police whereby the petitioner had been declared a proceedings arising y to join the is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court from today and on doing so, the learned trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to his furnishing fresh personal/surety bonds trial It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before , this petition shall be deemed MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.01 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-62489 13. Rs. 10,000/ Authority, 01.05.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 62489-2024 (O&M) However, this relief shall be subject to payment o 0,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner with the District Legal Services Authority, Jalandhar. 01.05.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -5- However, this relief shall be subject to payment of cost of , to be deposited by the petitioner with the District Legal Services (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No f cost of , to be deposited by the petitioner with the District Legal Services MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.01 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document