130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA GURJINDER SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. for the petitioner. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This is the first petition filed under Section 528 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) dated 30.09.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar (Annexure P-4), whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed case stemming from FIR No.210 dated 03 269/270/283/188 of IPC and 51 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 at Police Station Kartarpur, District Jalandhar (Rural). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was regular bail in the present case and was regularly appearing before the trial Court. However, on 04.12.2023, the petitioner was arrested in another FIR bearing No.68 dated 04.12.2023 registered under Section 302/34 of IPC at Police Station Bholath, Dis before the trial Court the petitioner as proclaimed 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH GURJINDER SINGH V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This is the first petition filed under Section 528 Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking quashing of impugned order dated 30.09.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar 4), whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed case stemming from FIR No.210 dated 03.09.2020 registered under Sections 269/270/283/188 of IPC and 51 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 at Police Station Kartarpur, District Jalandhar (Rural). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was regular bail in the present case and was regularly appearing before the trial Court. However, on 04.12.2023, the petitioner was arrested in another FIR bearing No.68 dated 04.12.2023 registered under Section 302/34 of IPC at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala. Due to which, he could not appear before the trial Court and the trial Court vide order dated the petitioner as proclaimed person. Learned counsel for the petitioner IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14675-2025 Date of decision: 02.04.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR This is the first petition filed under Section 528 Bharatiya , 2023 seeking quashing of impugned order dated 30.09.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar 4), whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in .09.2020 registered under Sections 269/270/283/188 of IPC and 51 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 at Police Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was on regular bail in the present case and was regularly appearing before the trial Court. However, on 04.12.2023, the petitioner was arrested in another FIR bearing No.68 dated 04.12.2023 registered under Section 302/34 of IPC at trict Kapurthala. Due to which, he could not appear the trial Court vide order dated 30.09.2024, declared Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that MANISHA 2025.04.02 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-14675 proclamation was issu Section 82 Cr.P.C. and non the entire proceedings served and the impugned order is liable to b 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent passed by the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put in appearance before the trial Court intentionally and deliberately and, therefore, having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure his presence. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the record of the case with disposal. 7. While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates curtailment of personal libe that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain a healthy balance between personal liberty of the individual interests of the society in promoting law and order. compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. 8. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court issued proclamation without recording reasons of its belief that the petitioner has absconded or is concealing Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406; 14675-2025 2 proclamation was issued against the petitioner Section 82 Cr.P.C. and non-compliance of the mandatory provisions vitiates the entire proceedings, which suffers from incurable illegality served and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Notice of motion. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent passed by the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put in appearance before the trial Court intentionally and deliberately and, therefore, having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure I have heard learned counsel for the record of the case with their able assistance, the matter is taken up for final While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain a healthy balance between personal liberty of the individual interests of the society in promoting law and order. compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court issued ion without recording reasons of its belief that the petitioner has absconded or is concealing himself. This Court in the judgment passed in Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406; without following the drill of compliance of the mandatory provisions vitiates which suffers from incurable illegality as he was never e set aside. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and supports the order passed by the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put in appearance before the trial Court intentionally and deliberately and, therefore, having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the able assistance, the matter is taken up for final While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates rty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain a healthy balance between personal liberty of the individual-accused and interests of the society in promoting law and order. Such procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court issued ion without recording reasons of its belief that the petitioner has . This Court in the judgment passed in Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406; MANISHA 2025.04.02 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-14675 2023 (2) Law Herald 1506 satisfaction before issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and non recording of the satisfaction itself makes such order suffering from incurable illegality. In the judgment passed by this Court in 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 319 Section 82 (2) Cr.P.C. for the publication of a proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. Any non an ‘irregularity’ and re thereto a nullity. 9. The sole purpose of issuance of non of proclamation is to secure presence of the accused before the trial Court. The petitioner in the present case has 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the ratio of law laid down in petition is allowed P-4), vide which quashed. 11. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within a period of two weeks from today and on bail on his furnishing bai trial Court, along with costs of Rs. Pingalwara Charitable Society, Jalandhar, Court. 12. Receipt of payment of cost must be presented before learned trial Court and learned trial Court is directed to verify the same. 14675-2025 3 2023 (2) Law Herald 1506 has held that the Cou satisfaction before issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and non recording of the satisfaction itself makes such order suffering from incurable illegality. In the judgment passed by this Court in 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 319, it has been held that the con (2) Cr.P.C. 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. The sole purpose of issuance of non of proclamation is to secure presence of the accused before the trial Court. The petitioner in the present case has himself come forward. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the ratio of law laid down in Major Singh @ Major petition is allowed and the impugned order dated vide which, the petitioner was declared The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within a weeks from today and on his doing so, furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Court, along with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Pingalwara Charitable Society, Jalandhar, for wasting Receipt of payment of cost must be presented before learned trial Court and learned trial Court is directed to verify the same. has held that the Court is first required to record its satisfaction before issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and non- recording of the satisfaction itself makes such order suffering from incurable illegality. In the judgment passed by this Court in Sonu Vs. State of Haryana , it has been held that the conditions specified in (2) Cr.P.C. for the publication of a proclamation against an compliance therewith cannot be cured as nders the proclamation and proceedings subsequent The sole purpose of issuance of non-bailable warrants or issuance of proclamation is to secure presence of the accused before the trial Court. The come forward. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of Major Singh @ Major (supra), the present dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure declared as proclaimed person is The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within a doing so, he shall be admitted to l bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the to be deposited with the All India wasting precious time of the Receipt of payment of cost must be presented before learned trial Court and learned trial Court is directed to verify the same. MANISHA 2025.04.02 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-14675 13. It is made clear that in case, the petitioner fails to appear before the trial Court within a stipulated period, the interi Court shall be deemed to be vacated. April 02, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 14675-2025 4 It is made clear that in case, the petitioner fails to appear before the trial Court within a stipulated period, the interi Court shall be deemed to be vacated. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable It is made clear that in case, the petitioner fails to appear before the trial Court within a stipulated period, the interim protection granted by this HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.02 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment