CRM-M-47258 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 113+296 Mohd Talha State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. CRM-10605 2. CRM-M 528 of Bhar 26.10.2015 Magistrate First Class, others, arising out 302, 406, 420, 364 Emigration Act had been declared a proclaimed 3. grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petit falsely implicated in 47258-2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Mohd Talha Versus Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Munish Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 10605-2025 Allowed as prayed for, subject Documents are taken on record. M-47258-2024 (O&M) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 26.10.2015 (Annexure P-13), passed by the Magistrate First Class, Palwal in case titled as arising out of FIR No. 302 dated 12.11.2011, registered under Sections 302, 406, 420, 364-A, 387, 201 and 120-B of IPC and Sections Emigration Act at Police Station Chand Hut, Palwal, had been declared a proclaimed offender. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petit falsely implicated in the aforementioned case -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-47258-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.03.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Documents are taken on record. 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. Mohd. Ayyaj and of FIR No. 302 dated 12.11.2011, registered under Sections B of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the at Police Station Chand Hut, Palwal, whereby the petitioner The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been case. He was not named in the FIR - 2024 (O&M) 17.03.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section for quashing of order dated Judicial State vs. Mohd. Ayyaj and of FIR No. 302 dated 12.11.2011, registered under Sections 25, 27 of the whereby the petitioner The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ioner has been He was not named in the FIR MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.18 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-47258 and was nominated as accused on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by co petitioner was under a case during the course of investigation. Even a cancellation report was presented subsequently. However, later on, the final report was presented by the police before the Court. the trial against him warrants. He trial Court. More so, t without following the proper procedure prescribed under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, all the accused persons including Mohammad Vaish, on the basis of whose disclosure statement the petitioner was nominated in this case, have been acquitted by the lear 13.12.2019. 4. infirmity or illegality in the impugned order as the petitioner had in avoided his appearance before the learned trial Court. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. 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 by the learned 82 of Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed 47258-2024 (O&M) and was nominated as accused on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Mohammad Vaish. It is further submitted that the petitioner was under a bona fide impression that he ha case during the course of investigation. Even a cancellation report was presented subsequently. However, later on, the final report was presented by the police before the Court. The petitioner was not trial against him and even his address was wrongly mentioned in the . He was never served with any notice/warrants issued by the trial Court. More so, the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed following the proper procedure prescribed under Section 82 Even otherwise, all the accused persons including Mohammad Vaish, on the basis of whose disclosure statement the petitioner was nominated in this case, have been acquitted by the learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 13.12.2019. Hence, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order as the petitioner had in avoided his appearance before the learned trial Court. Hence, it is urged that the petition 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 by learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed learned trial Court from the date of initiating 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 -2- and was nominated as accused on the basis of the disclosure statement accused Mohammad Vaish. It is further submitted that the impression that he had been exonerated in the case during the course of investigation. Even a cancellation report was presented subsequently. However, later on, the final report was presented by The petitioner was not aware about pendency of and even his address was wrongly mentioned in the was never served with any notice/warrants issued by the learned he petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender following the proper procedure prescribed under Section 82 Even otherwise, all the accused persons including Mohammad Vaish, on the basis of whose disclosure statement the petitioner was nominated in ned trial Court, vide judgment dated impugned order is liable to be set aside. , learned State counsel has argued that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order as the petitioner had intentionally avoided his appearance before the learned trial Court. Hence, it is urged that I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the material placed on record. On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings under Section Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a , I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order - and was nominated as accused on the basis of the disclosure statement accused Mohammad Vaish. It is further submitted that the been exonerated in the case during the course of investigation. Even a cancellation report was presented subsequently. However, later on, the final report was presented by aware about pendency of and even his address was wrongly mentioned in the learned offender following the proper procedure prescribed under Section 82 of Even otherwise, all the accused persons including Mohammad Vaish, on the basis of whose disclosure statement the petitioner was nominated in ned trial Court, vide judgment dated impugned order is liable to be set aside. , learned State counsel has argued that there is no tentionally avoided his appearance before the learned trial Court. Hence, it is urged that at considerable length On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed proceedings under Section Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a , I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.18 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-47258 dated 26.10.2015 with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 7. copies of zim 07.08.2015 received back unserved, proclamation against that the learned trial Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has not recorded its proper satisfaction that was concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previou 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. HC Bharat Bhushan reveals that the proclamation was executed on 10.09.2015 requiring the petitioner to cause his appearance before the learned trial Court on 28.09.2015, period of 30 days to cause his appearance before the Court concerned. 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 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 Gugal and others Vs. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339. 47258-2024 (O&M) 26.10.2015 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 07.08.2015, since the non-bailable warrants iss received back unserved, the learned trial Court had ordered for issuance of proclamation against him for 28.09.2015. 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, previou 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. Further, a perusal of the statement of the serving police official HC Bharat Bhushan reveals that the proclamation was executed on 10.09.2015 requiring the petitioner to cause his appearance before the learned trial Court on 28.09.2015, which means that the petitioner was not grant period of 30 days to cause his appearance before the Court concerned. 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 required to be given to used from the date of publishing such proclamation which is mandatory in nature. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Gugal and others Vs. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339. -3- 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 the 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 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 in this regard can be placed Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561. statement of the serving police official HC Bharat Bhushan reveals that the proclamation was executed on 10.09.2015 requiring the petitioner to cause his appearance before the learned trial Court which means that the petitioner was not granted mandatory period of 30 days to cause his appearance before the Court concerned. 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 required to be given to used from the date of publishing such proclamation which is mandatory in nature. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Gurappa State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339. - suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed rd as well as the revealed that on ued 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 sly issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of the in this regard can be placed statement of the serving police official HC Bharat Bhushan reveals that the proclamation was executed on 10.09.2015 requiring the petitioner to cause his appearance before the learned trial Court ed mandatory period of 30 days to cause his appearance before the Court concerned. 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 required to be given to used from the date of publishing such proclamation which is Gurappa Shokat Ali Vs. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.18 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-47258 9. also reveals that the proclamation was not read over place of the town or residing. 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 res thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court the Cr.P.C. are conjunctive and not dis be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are proved. Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of W.B. : 1973 10. view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities petition is allowed and the impugned order dated P-13), passed by the in case titled as dated 12.11.2011, registered under Sections 302, 406, 420, 364 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Chand Hut, Palwal, offender, is qua petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period 47258-2024 (O&M) Further, a perusal of the statement of the serving police official reveals that the proclamation was not read over place of the town or village in which the residing. As per Section 82 (2) of Cr.P.C 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) the Cr.P.C. 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. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of W.B. : 1973 Accordingly, in view of the discussion as made above view 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. Mohd. Ayyaj and others dated 12.11.2011, registered under Sections 302, 406, 420, 364 B of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Chand Hut, Palwal, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed , is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period -4- Further, a perusal of the statement of the serving police official reveals that the proclamation was not read over in some conspicuous village in which the petitioner was supposed to be Section 82 (2) of Cr.P.C. 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 ides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous clauses (a)-(c) in Section 82 (2)(i) of junctive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368. , in view of the discussion as made above and also in view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.10.2015 (Annexure Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palwal State vs. Mohd. Ayyaj and others, arising out of FIR No. 302 dated 12.11.2011, registered under Sections 302, 406, 420, 364-A, 387, 201 B of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed shed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period - Further, a perusal of the statement of the serving police official in some conspicuous petitioner was supposed to be 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 ides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous (c) in Section 82 (2)(i) of junctive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of Pawan and also in , the present 26.10.2015 (Annexure Palwal of FIR No. 302 A, 387, 201 B of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed The petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.18 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-47258 of 15 days from today and on doing so, the learned trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to his furni 11. Court, his arrest 12. the learned to be dismissed. 13. Rs. 5,000/ Authority, Palwal. 17.03.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 47258-2024 (O&M) of 15 days from today and on doing so, the learned trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to his furnishing 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. However, this relief shall be subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner with the Authority, Palwal. 17.03.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -5- of 15 days from today and on doing so, the learned trial Court shall release shing personal/surety bonds to its satisfaction. Till the appearance of the petitioner before the learned It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before the stipulated time, this petition shall be deemed 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 - of 15 days from today and on doing so, the learned trial Court shall release shing personal/surety bonds to its satisfaction. learned trial It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before , this petition shall be deemed However, this relief shall be subject to payment of cost of District Legal Services MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.18 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document