CRM-M-58021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 257 AMREEK SINGH STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SURYA P documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is hereby allowed and the documents annexed with the application are taken on record. 2. referred to as ‘impugned order’ Magistrate under challenge in the present petition 58021-2025(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH AMREEK SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr.Gurvinder Pal Singh, Advocatefor Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG Punjab SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. CRM-44749-2025 This is an application seeking for placing on record certain documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is hereby allowed and the documents annexed with the application are taken on CRM-M-58021-2025 The order dated 29.07.2017 referred to as ‘impugned order’, passed by the learned MagistrateKapurthala, hereinafter being under challenge in the present petition IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-58021-2025(O&M) DECIDED ON: 13.02.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH , Advocatefor the petitioner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG Punjab. This is an application seeking for placing on record certain documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is hereby allowed and the documents annexed with the application are taken on (Annexure P-1), hereinafter being passed by the learned Chief Judicial being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only under challenge in the present petition, filed under Section 528 of the (O&M) .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT This is an application seeking for placing on record certain documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is hereby allowed and the documents annexed with the application are taken on , hereinafter being Judicial only, is of the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.16 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-58021 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita only. 2. while holding a trial for the commission of o Sections 406 and 420 proclaimed 3. petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 appearance, on various occasions non the petitioner. H left the country and settled in 4. issued proclamation against the petitioner for proclamation issued against the petitioner was received back duly effected and the learned trial Court the statement of serving Constable. dated 29.07.2017 serving Constable 5. that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 82 of CrP it has been specifically alleged by not publicly read, as prescribed 58021-2025(O&M) 2 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, By virtue of abovementioned order, t while holding a trial for the commission of o 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code proclaimed person. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under 406 and 420 of IPC and in the abovementioned appearance, on various occasions non-bailable warrants were the petitioner. However, the same could not be executed the country and settled in a foreign country. Subsequently, vide order dated issued proclamation against the petitioner for proclamation issued against the petitioner was received back duly effected and the learned trial Court adjourned the statement of serving Constable. There dated 29.07.2017, the learned trial Court after recording the statement of serving Constable declared the petitioner to be a The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), was not it has been specifically alleged by the petitioner that the proclamation was not publicly read, as prescribed under the law. , 2023, hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS By virtue of abovementioned order, the learned trial Court while holding a trial for the commission of offence punishable under of Indian Penal Code, declared the petitioner to be shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under the abovementioned case due to non bailable warrants were issued against owever, the same could not be executed as the petitioner had a foreign country. Subsequently, vide order dated 02.03.2017, learned trial Court issued proclamation against the petitioner for 19.04.2017. On 19.04.2017 the proclamation issued against the petitioner was received back duly effected adjourned the case for 06.06.2017 for recording Thereafter, by virtue of impugned order the learned trial Court after recording the statement of the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the was not complied with. In this regard, the petitioner that the proclamation was under the law. BNSS’ he learned trial Court ffence punishable under the petitioner to be a shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under due to non- issued against as the petitioner had , learned trial Court n 19.04.2017 the proclamation issued against the petitioner was received back duly effected recording by virtue of impugned order the learned trial Court after recording the statement of The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the complied with. In this regard, the petitioner that the proclamation was GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.16 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-58021 6. 7. petitioner was never served with any summons as he had country in the year 2016. As per learned counsel for the petitioner learned trial Court has committed an error when without following due process, it declared the petiti learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the basic steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case, the executing Constable had not public the proclamation at a public place. 8. counsel for learned trial Court, impugned order is liable to be set aside. 9. abovementioned arguments. He has contended petitioner is a person, who right from the very pendency of criminal proceedings against before the Court and remained absent in view of above the petitioner defect, if any, which might declaring the petitioner 10. 11. record the 58021-2025(O&M) 3 Heard. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that petitioner was never served with any summons as he had in the year 2016. As per learned counsel for the petitioner learned trial Court has committed an error when without following due process, it declared the petitioner to be a learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the basic steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case, the executing Constable had not public proclamation at a public place. In addition to above, it has counsel for the petitioner that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, in declaring the petitioner to be proclaimed offe impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned State Counsel has abovementioned arguments. He has contended petitioner is a person, who right from the very pendency of criminal proceedings against before the Court and remained absent for long. As per learned State Counsel, in view of above the petitioner cannot draw defect, if any, which might have occurred inadvertently, in the process of declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner ha the copy of statement of the Executing Constable recorded by the It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that that the petitioner was never served with any summons as he had left for a foreign in the year 2016. As per learned counsel for the petitioner learned trial Court has committed an error when without following due a proclaimed person. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the basic steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case, the executing Constable had not publicly read In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned the petitioner that because of defective procedure adopted by the declaring the petitioner to be proclaimed offender, the The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. He has contended that in the present case, the petitioner is a person, who right from the very beginning was aware of the pendency of criminal proceedings against him, but opted not to appear for long. As per learned State Counsel, cannot draw any benefit of the technical urred inadvertently, in the process of to be a proclaimed offender. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has placed on copy of statement of the Executing Constable recorded by the that the left for a foreign the learned trial Court has committed an error when without following due proclaimed person. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the basic steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, ly read contended by learned the petitioner that because of defective procedure adopted by the nder, the controverted the present case, the beginning was aware of the him, but opted not to appear for long. As per learned State Counsel, technical urred inadvertently, in the process of placed on copy of statement of the Executing Constable recorded by the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.16 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-58021 learned trial Court, The statement of Executing Constable, namely 29.07.2017 12. Executing Constable shows that the above not publicly read the contents of dated 29.07.2017 the Executing Constable, 13. Executing Constable, it is relevant to mention CrPC lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken declaring a person to be a proclaimed person: 58021-2025(O&M) 4 learned trial Court, before declaring the petitioner The statement of Executing Constable, namely 29.07.2017reads as under:- “Stated that I received a proclamation Court of CJM, Kapurthala in respect of accused Amrik Singh which is Ex.P1. After receiving the same, I visited the address of accused at Dhaliwal Kadiyan, P.S. Lambra and affixed one copy of the same at the fron and another copy was affixed at near Lehoul and third copy was affixed at the notice board of the Court on 09.03.2017. My report is Ex.P2 which bears my signature at point X.” A bare perusal of the above Executing Constable shows that the above not publicly read the contents of abovementioned 29.07.2017 shows that on the basis of above the Executing Constable, the petitioner has With regard to the above-mentioned procedure adopted by the Executing Constable, it is relevant to mention lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken declaring a person to be a proclaimed person: “(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 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 (ii) the Court may also, if the petitioner to be proclaimed offender. The statement of Executing Constable, namely Jaswinder Singh dated I received a proclamation order from Hon’ble Court of CJM, Kapurthala in respect of accused Amrik Singh which is Ex.P1. After receiving the same, I visited the address of accused at Dhaliwal Kadiyan, P.S. Lambra and affixed one copy of the same at the front gate of the accused Amrik Singh and another copy was affixed at near Lehoul and third copy was affixed at the notice board of the Court on 09.03.2017. My report is Ex.P2 which bears my signature at point X.” A bare perusal of the above-mentioned statement of the Executing Constable shows that the above-named Executing Constable had abovementioned proclamation. The order on the basis of abovementioned statement of has been declared proclaimed person mentioned procedure adopted by the Executing Constable, it is relevant to mention here that Section 82(2) of lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a person to be a proclaimed person:- “(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; 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; a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house; the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of proclaimed offender. dated order from Hon’ble Court of CJM, Kapurthala in respect of accused Amrik Singh which is Ex.P1. After receiving the same, I visited the address of accused at Dhaliwal Kadiyan, P.S. Lambra and affixed one t gate of the accused Amrik Singh and another copy was affixed at near Lehoul and third copy was affixed at the notice board of the Court on 09.03.2017. My atement of the named Executing Constable had The order mentioned statement of person. mentioned procedure adopted by the (2) of before (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous it thinks fit, direct a copy of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.16 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-58021 14. it has been repeatedly observed by abovementioned provisions of Section It has also been held that in case the above process is not and spirit, the offender/proclaimed person is defective. 15. statement of executing Constable no read over at a public p as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., declaring the above offender is defective and not sustainable in the eyes of l 16. &Anr.’ CRM CRM-M-50704 at a conspicuous place of the town or resides, as abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been High Court in the cases of 18 and ‘Tajinder Singh v. State of Punjab 58021-2025(O&M) 5 the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.” With regard to mandatory nature of above it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of abovementioned provisions of Section 82(2) of It has also been held that in case the above process is not and spirit, the impugned order declaring a person to be a proclaimed offender/proclaimed person is defective. In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention ement of executing Constable nowhere depicts that the proclamation was read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., declaring the abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed offender is defective and not sustainable in the eyes of l This Court in the cases of CRM-M-27944 of 2024 and ‘Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab 50704-2024, it has been observed that if a proclamation is not read at a conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides, as prescribed under Section 82(2) abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been High Court in the cases of ‘Pal Singh Santa Singh v. State Tajinder Singh v. State of Punjab’ the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.” rd to mandatory nature of abovementioned procedure, this Court, that the compliance of (2) of CrPC is mandatory in nature. It has also been held that in case the above process is not followed in letter order declaring a person to be a proclaimed In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention here that the where depicts that the proclamation was lace in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., and the impugned order said person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed offender is defective and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Court in the cases of ‘Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab observed that if a proclamation is not read village in which such person ordinarily prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a), the order declaring the abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed offender is defective and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been taken by this Pal Singh Santa Singh v. State’ AIR 1955 Punjab ’ in CRM-M-21736-2024. the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such mentioned procedure, this Court, that the compliance of is mandatory in nature. in letter order declaring a person to be a proclaimed that the where depicts that the proclamation was lace in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, impugned order said person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab’ observed that if a proclamation is not read village in which such person ordinarily (i)(a), the order declaring the offender is defective n by this Punjab GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.16 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-58021 17. abovementioned fact i.e. non-reading of passed by unsustainable in the eyes allowed and Court is hereby quashed 18. of proclamation only and issuance of warrant of arrest against the shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court will be at liberty to take the petitioner into of the BNSS surrenders and files an application for bail, the same be expeditiously, and in any case within a period of seven days. Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 58021-2025(O&M) 6 Taking into consideration the cumulative effect abovementioned factors, as there was a defect reading of proclamation in public place passed by the learned trial Court is hereby held to be sustainable in the eyes of law. Resultantly, the and the impugned order dated 29.07.2017 is hereby quashed. It is however made clear that this order is with regard to legality of proclamation only and issuance of warrant of arrest against the shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court will be at liberty to take the petitioner into custody, if the law permits so, BNSS (erstwhile Section 446 Cr.P.C). However, in surrenders and files an application for bail, the same be expeditiously, and in any case within a period of seven days. Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/ Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the was a defect in affixation of proclamation in public place, the order dated 29.07.2017 hereby held to be perverse, defective and of law. Resultantly, the present petition is hereby 29.07.2017 passed by the learned trial It is however made clear that this order is with regard to legality of proclamation only and issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court will be at liberty to take the custody, if the law permits so, or proceed under Section 491 (erstwhile Section 446 Cr.P.C). However, in case the petitioner surrenders and files an application for bail, the same be disposed of expeditiously, and in any case within a period of seven days. :Yes/No : Yes/No of the in affixation of proclamation, 29.07.2017 defective and hereby passed by the learned trial It is however made clear that this order is with regard to legality petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court will be at liberty to take the or proceed under Section 491 case the petitioner disposed of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.16 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document