132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIMANSHU NARANG STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. for the petitioner. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The present petition has been filed 2023 for quashing of order dated learned Sub-Divisional No.90/2019, whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person consequential FIR bearing 174-A IPC at Police Station consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable petitioner and the petitioner was not aware about the said complaint. As such, he did not appear before the trial Court and was declared as proclaimed person vide order dated was registered against him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order has been passed in a cryptic manner and IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH HIMANSHU NARANG V/S HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Omkar Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 29.04.2023 Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samalkha whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person consequential FIR bearing No.532 dated 09.06. A IPC at Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. The brief facts of the present case are that a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 w petitioner and the petitioner was not aware about the said complaint. As such, did not appear before the trial Court and was declared as proclaimed person vide order dated 29.04.2023 (Annexure P-4) and subsequently, FIR ( was registered against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order has been passed in a cryptic manner and the impugned order is liable to IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14756-2025 Date of decision: 29.04.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR The present petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, 29.04.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by Samalkha in a case bearing NACT whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person and the 09.06.2023 registered under Section Panipat (Annexure P-5) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. The brief facts of the present case are that a complaint under Instruments Act, 1881 was filed against the petitioner and the petitioner was not aware about the said complaint. As such, did not appear before the trial Court and was declared as proclaimed person ) and subsequently, FIR (supra) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned the impugned order is liable to MANISHA 2025.04.29 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-14756 be set aside on the ground that the man been followed in its letter and spirit by the trial Court. conditions as laid down in Section 195 the proceedings against the petitioner, which encompasse IPC within its purview. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent 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 presence. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance and with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 7. Section 174 Amendment Act of 2005, and a corresponding amendment was made to Schedule 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr provision as a cognizable offence. However, no corresponding amendment was made to Section 195 of the scope. The proposition that Section 174 as laid out in Section 195 Cr.P.C. 174-A IPC and the corresponding Section 209 of 2023, are essentially identical. However, Section 209 has been explicitly removed from the purview of Section 215 of the Bhartiya Nag 14756-2025 2 be set aside on the ground that the mandate of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has not been followed in its letter and spirit by the trial Court. conditions as laid down in Section 195 Cr.P.C. the proceedings against the petitioner, which encompasse IPC within its purview. Notice of motion. Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and 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 record of the case with their able assistance and with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. Section 174-A of the IPC was introduced through the Amendment Act of 2005, and a corresponding amendment was made to Schedule 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr provision as a cognizable offence. However, no corresponding amendment was made to Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. to exclude The proposition that Section 174-A IPC is governed by the procedure as laid out in Section 195 Cr.P.C. is further supported by the fact that Section A IPC and the corresponding Section 209 of 2023, are essentially identical. However, Section 209 has been explicitly removed from the purview of Section 215 of the Bhartiya Nag date of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has not been followed in its letter and spirit by the trial Court. He further submits that have not been followed before the proceedings against the petitioner, which encompasses Section 174-A of Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana, who is present in the Court, 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 his I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance and with the consent of parties, the A of the IPC was introduced through the Amendment Act of 2005, and a corresponding amendment was made to Schedule 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), classifying this provision as a cognizable offence. However, no corresponding amendment to exclude Section 174-A IPC from its A IPC is governed by the procedure is further supported by the fact that Section A IPC and the corresponding Section 209 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, are essentially identical. However, Section 209 has been explicitly removed from the purview of Section 215 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha MANISHA 2025.04.29 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-14756 Sanhita, 2023 which mirrors Section 195 of Section 195 of the Cr legislature in its wisdom this time Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita 195(1)(b) of the Therefore, it is evident under Section 174 8. As it is c 195, it would be apposite to Cr.P.C. is mandatory the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567 made: “20. Section taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section Penal Code or abetment or attempt to commit the same, unless, there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of his lawful order. The object of this provision is to prov procedure in a case of contempt of the lawful authority of the public servant. The of offences enumerated therein. The legislative intent behind such a provision has been that prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by persons actuated by malice, ill criminal courts being wasted by endless prosecutions. This provision has been carved out as an exception to the general rule contained under Section 190 in motion by making a complaint, as it prohibits the cognizance of certain offences until and unless a complaint has been made by some particular authority or person. Other provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code like sections 196 and 198 do not lay down any rule of procedure, rather, they only create a 14756-2025 3 which mirrors Section 195 of Cr.P.C. Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. clearly encompasses Section 174 in its wisdom this time has specifically excluded Section 209 of the Sanhita from the ambit of Section 215 Sanhita. Furthermore, in 2006, an amendment wa 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., but Section 195(1)(a)(i) was left unchanged. Therefore, it is evident that Section 195 of the under Section 174-A IPC. As it is conclusive that Section 174 would be apposite to emphasize that the drill of is mandatory in nature. This position is supported by the Supreme Court’s rendered in C. Muniappan & O Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567, wherein the following observations were “20. Section 195(a)(i) Criminal Procedure Code bars the taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section Penal Code or abetment or attempt to commit the same, unless, there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of his lawful order. The object of this provision is to prov procedure in a case of contempt of the lawful authority of the public servant. The court lacks competence to take cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated therein. The legislative intent behind such a provision has been that an individual should not face criminal prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by persons actuated by malice, ill-will or frivolity of disposition and to save the time of the criminal courts being wasted by endless prosecutions. This provision been carved out as an exception to the general rule contained under 190 Criminal Procedure Code that any person can set the law in motion by making a complaint, as it prohibits the cognizance of certain offences until and unless a complaint has been made by some particular authority or person. Other provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code like sections 196 and 198 do not lay down any rule of procedure, rather, they only create a Cr.P.C. In its present form, thus, arly encompasses Section 174-A IPC, as the has specifically excluded Section 209 of the from the ambit of Section 215 of the Bhartiya Nagarik . Furthermore, in 2006, an amendment was made to Section , but Section 195(1)(a)(i) was left unchanged. that Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. applies to the offence that Section 174-A IPC is governed by Section the drill of Section 195 of the . This position is supported by the judgment of C. Muniappan & Others. v. State of wherein the following observations were (a)(i) Criminal Procedure Code bars the court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 188 Indian Penal Code or abetment or attempt to commit the same, unless, there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of his lawful order. The object of this provision is to provide for a particular procedure in a case of contempt of the lawful authority of the public lacks competence to take cognizance in certain types of offences enumerated therein. The legislative intent behind such a an individual should not face criminal prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by persons actuated by will or frivolity of disposition and to save the time of the criminal courts being wasted by endless prosecutions. This provision been carved out as an exception to the general rule contained under Criminal Procedure Code that any person can set the law in motion by making a complaint, as it prohibits the court from taking cognizance of certain offences until and unless a complaint has been made by some particular authority or person. Other provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code like sections 196 and 198 do not lay down any rule of procedure, rather, they only create a bar that unless some MANISHA 2025.04.29 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-14756 requirements are complied with, the an offence described in those Sections. (vide of Bihar, AIR 1971 The State of Gujarat, AIR 1971 Ors. v. Balbir Singh, 1996(3) RCR (Criminal) 240 : (1996) 3 SCC 533; State of Punjab v. Raj Sin 576 : (1998) 2 SCC 391; Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 352; and Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 178 : 2005(1) Apex Criminal 581 21. The test of whe Section 195 disclose primarily and essentially an offence for which a complaint of the court or of a public s The State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 and Durgacharan Naik & Ors. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1966 Supreme Section cannot be evaded by descri punishable under some other sections of Indian Penal Code, though in truth and substance, the offence falls in a category mentioned in Section 195 offence cannot be taken by mis on it. 22. In M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana & Anr., 1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 718 under : "....Provis are any of the offences mentioned therein in writing as required under 23. In Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr., 1998(1) RCR (Criminal) 823 : (1998) 2 SCC 493, this issue observed as under : "7. ..Section 190 of the Code empowers "any magistrate o first class" to take cognizance of "any offence" upon receiving a complaint, or police report or information or upon his own knowledge. Section 195 restricts such general powers of the magistrate, and the general right of a person to move the recognised canon of interpretation that 14756-2025 4 requirements are complied with, the court an offence described in those Sections. (vide of Bihar, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1708; The State of Gujarat, AIR 1971 Supreme Ors. v. Balbir Singh, 1996(3) RCR (Criminal) 240 : (1996) 3 SCC State of Punjab v. Raj Singh & Anr., 1998(1) RCR (Criminal) 576 : (1998) 2 SCC 391; K. Vengadachalam v. K.C. Palanisamy & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 352; and Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 178 : 2005(1) Apex Criminal 581 ). 21. The test of whether there is evasion or non 195 Criminal Procedure Code or not, is whether the facts disclose primarily and essentially an offence for which a complaint of or of a public servant is required. In The State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 Durgacharan Naik & Ors. v. State of Orissa, AIR Supreme Court 1775, this Court held that the provisions of this Section cannot be evaded by describing the offence as one being punishable under some other sections of Indian Penal Code, though in truth and substance, the offence falls in a category mentioned in 195 Criminal Procedure Code Thus offence cannot be taken by mis-describing it or by putting a wrong label M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana & Anr., 1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 718 , this Court considered the matter at length and held as "....Provisions of Section 195 Criminal Procedure Code are mandatory and no court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the offences mentioned therein in writing as required under that section." (Emphasis added) Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr., 1998(1) RCR (Criminal) 823 : (1998) 2 SCC 493, this issue observed as under : "7. ..Section 190 of the Code empowers "any magistrate o first class" to take cognizance of "any offence" upon receiving a complaint, or police report or information or upon his own knowledge. Section 195 restricts such general powers of the magistrate, and the general right of a person to move court with a complaint to that extent curtailed. It is a well recognised canon of interpretation that court shall not take cognizance of an offence described in those Sections. (vide Govind Mehta v. The State 1708; Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. Supreme Court 1935; Surjit Singh & Ors. v. Balbir Singh, 1996(3) RCR (Criminal) 240 : (1996) 3 SCC gh & Anr., 1998(1) RCR (Criminal) K. Vengadachalam v. K.C. Palanisamy & Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 178 : 2005(1) ther there is evasion or non-compliance of Criminal Procedure Code or not, is whether the facts disclose primarily and essentially an offence for which a complaint of ervant is required. In Basir-ul-Haq & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 Supreme Court293; Durgacharan Naik & Ors. v. State of Orissa, AIR held that the provisions of this bing the offence as one being punishable under some other sections of Indian Penal Code, though in truth and substance, the offence falls in a category mentioned in Criminal Procedure Code Thus, cognizance of such an describing it or by putting a wrong label M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana & Anr., 1999(4) RCR considered the matter at length and held as Criminal Procedure Code has jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the offences mentioned therein unless there is a complaint that section." (Emphasis added) Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr., 1998(1) RCR (Criminal) 823 : (1998) 2 SCC 493, this Court while dealing with "7. ..Section 190 of the Code empowers "any magistrate of the first class" to take cognizance of "any offence" upon receiving a complaint, or police report or information or upon his own knowledge. Section 195 restricts such general powers of the magistrate, and the general right of a person to move ith a complaint to that extent curtailed. It is a well- recognised canon of interpretation that provision curbing the MANISHA 2025.04.29 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-14756 general jurisdiction of the interpretation otherwise." 24. In Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 this Court Section 195 been taken on the police report by the Magistrate and the appellant therein had been tried and convicted, though the concerned publi servant, the Tahsildar had not filed any complaint. This under : "The cognizance of the case was therefore wrongly assumed by the namely, the Tahsildar in this case. jurisdiction ab initio and the conviction cannot be maintained. of the appellant and the sentence passed on him are set aside." 25. Thus, that there must be a complaint by the public servant whose lawful order has not been complied with. The complaint must be in writing. The provisions of Section Non-compliance of it wou consequential orders. The case without such complaint. In the absence of such a complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab initio being without jurisdiction. 9. Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the IPC unless a written complaint is made by the concerned public servant or another public servant to whom they are a provision serves as an explicit bar, stating that the court cannot take cognizance of a matter based on a complaint, as defined under Section 2(d) of the Report or Final complaint filed in 14756-2025 5 general jurisdiction of the court interpretation unless the statute or the context requires otherwise." Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 Court considered the nature of the provisions of 195 Criminal Procedure Code In the said case, cognizance had been taken on the police report by the Magistrate and the appellant therein had been tried and convicted, though the concerned publi servant, the Tahsildar had not filed any complaint. This "The cognizance of the case was therefore wrongly assumed by court without the complaint in writing of the public servant, namely, the Tahsildar in this case. jurisdiction ab initio and the conviction cannot be maintained. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the conviction of the appellant and the sentence passed on him are set aside." in view of the above, the law can that there must be a complaint by the public servant whose lawful order has not been complied with. The complaint must be in writing. The provisions of Section 195 Criminal Procedure Code are mandatory. compliance of it would vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders. The Court cannot assume the cognizance of the case without such complaint. In the absence of such a complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab initio being without jurisdiction. Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C. take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the IPC unless a written complaint is made by the concerned public servant or another public servant to whom they are administratively subordinate. This provision serves as an explicit bar, stating that the court cannot take cognizance of a matter based on a Final Report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C complaint, as defined under Section 2(d) of the inal Report. Thus, cognizance can only be taken on a complaint filed in Court under Section 200 of the must normally receive strict unless the statute or the context requires (Emphasis supplied) Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1206, considered the nature of the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code In the said case, cognizance had been taken on the police report by the Magistrate and the appellant therein had been tried and convicted, though the concerned public servant, the Tahsildar had not filed any complaint. This Court held as "The cognizance of the case was therefore wrongly assumed by without the complaint in writing of the public servant, namely, the Tahsildar in this case. The trial was thus without jurisdiction ab initio and the conviction cannot be The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the conviction of the appellant and the sentence passed on him are set aside." (Emphasis added) law can be summarised to the effect that there must be a complaint by the public servant whose lawful order has not been complied with. The complaint must be in writing. The Criminal Procedure Code are mandatory. ld vitiate the prosecution and all other cannot assume the cognizance of the case without such complaint. In the absence of such a complaint, the trial and conviction will be void ab initio being without jurisdiction.” Cr.P.C. specifies that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the IPC unless a written complaint is made by the concerned public servant or dministratively subordinate. This provision serves as an explicit bar, stating that the court cannot take under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. A complaint, as defined under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., excludes a Police eport. Thus, cognizance can only be taken on a written ourt under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.. Further, Section MANISHA 2025.04.29 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-14756 21(3) of the IPC defines "public servant" to include every judge or any person empowered by law to perfor part of a body. Cr.P.C., it is clear that c IPC can only be initiated through a public servant or another public servant to whom they are administratively subordinate. (See: 41656-2023 decided on Punjab, CRM-M Channi CRM-M 10. In the present case, the learned Magistrate, being a public servant as defined under Section 21 of the IPC, was required to follow the procedure prescribed by law if he intended to initiate proceedings against the petitioner for the offence under Section 1 would have been to file a written complaint before the competent jurisdictional court. However, instead of adhering to this legal requirement, the Magistrate merely forward them to initiate proceedings under Section 174 the registration of of Section 195 of the provisions. Consequently, both the order passed by the Magistrate directing the initiation of proceedings and the resulting FIR stand contrary to the procedural safeguards enshrined in Section 195 of 11. While the scheme of criminal justice system curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance 14756-2025 6 21(3) of the IPC defines "public servant" to include every judge or any person empowered by law to perform adjudicatory functions, either individually or as As a result, from the plain language of Section 195 of the , it is clear that criminal prosecution under Sections 172 to 188 of the IPC can only be initiated through a written compl or another public servant to whom they are administratively (See: Pardeep Kumar vs. State of Punjab and Another, CRM decided on 23.08.2023; Jarnail Singh @ Rana vs. State of M-48718-2019 decided on 17.04.2024 M-453-2023 pronounced on 06.12.2023 In the present case, the learned Magistrate, being a public servant as defined under Section 21 of the IPC, was required to follow the procedure prescribed by law if he intended to initiate proceedings against the petitioner offence under Section 174-A of the IPC. The proper course of action would have been to file a written complaint before the competent jurisdictional court. However, instead of adhering to this legal requirement, the merely forwarded a copy of its orders to the them to initiate proceedings under Section 174-A IPC, which effectively led to the registration of the impugned FIR. Given the mandatory nature and scope of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., such an approach is in clear violation of its rovisions. Consequently, both the order passed by the Magistrate directing the initiation of proceedings and the resulting FIR stand contrary to the procedural safeguards enshrined in Section 195 of While the scheme of criminal justice system curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance 21(3) of the IPC defines "public servant" to include every judge or any person m adjudicatory functions, either individually or as rom the plain language of Section 195 of the riminal prosecution under Sections 172 to 188 of the complaint filed by the concerned or another public servant to whom they are administratively Pardeep Kumar vs. State of Punjab and Another, CRM- Jarnail Singh @ Rana vs. State of 17.04.2024 and Charanjit Singh @ 06.12.2023) In the present case, the learned Magistrate, being a public servant as defined under Section 21 of the IPC, was required to follow the procedure prescribed by law if he intended to initiate proceedings against the petitioner IPC. The proper course of action would have been to file a written complaint before the competent jurisdictional court. However, instead of adhering to this legal requirement, the learned a copy of its orders to the local police, directing A IPC, which effectively led to FIR. Given the mandatory nature and scope , such an approach is in clear violation of its rovisions. Consequently, both the order passed by the Magistrate directing the initiation of proceedings and the resulting FIR stand contrary to the procedural safeguards enshrined in Section 195 of Cr.P.C. While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance MANISHA 2025.04.29 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-14756 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. 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. Additionally, i certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods are necessarily forbidden. Reference can be made to judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dharani Sugars SCC 480. 12. In the eventuality of his non accused first ought to have been secured by issuing summons or bailable warrants, and non issued at the first instance. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court has issued a proclamation straight away, without recording any reasons to indicate that the petitioner has absconded or is concealing from the process of law. Conspicuously, no summons or bailable warrants were issued prior to issuance of the proclamation. This Court in the judgment passed in Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406; 2023 (2) Law Heral required to record its satisfaction before issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and non from incurable illegality. Furthermore, the learned cou has taken a specific stand that the petitioner was declared to be a proclaimed 14756-2025 7 that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain a healthy balance between personal liberty of the individual f 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. Additionally, it is a settled law that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods are necessarily forbidden. Reference can be made to judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India In the eventuality of his non-appearance, the presence of the accused first ought to have been secured by issuing summons or bailable warrants, and non-bailable warrants or proclamation should not generally be issued at the first instance. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court has issued a proclamation straight away, without recording any reasons to indicate that the petitioner has absconded or is concealing from the process of law. Conspicuously, no summons or bailable warrants were issued prior to issuance of the proclamation. This Court in the judgment Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406; 2023 (2) Law Herald 1506 has held that the Court is first required to record its satisfaction before issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and non-recording of the satisfaction itself makes such order suffering from incurable illegality. Furthermore, the learned cou has taken a specific stand that the petitioner was declared to be a proclaimed 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 f 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. at where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods are necessarily forbidden. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India reported in (2019) 5 appearance, the presence of the accused first ought to have been secured by issuing summons or bailable mation should not generally be issued at the first instance. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court has issued a proclamation straight away, without recording any reasons to indicate that the petitioner has absconded or is concealing himself from the process of law. Conspicuously, no summons or bailable warrants were issued prior to issuance of the proclamation. This Court in the judgment Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab 2023 (3) RCR has held that the Court is first required to record its satisfaction before issuance of process under Section 82 recording of the satisfaction itself makes such order suffering from incurable illegality. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a specific stand that the petitioner was declared to be a proclaimed the appearance, the presence of the MANISHA 2025.04.29 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-14756 person without following the drill of Section 82 Cr.P.C. Since the proclamation was never served on the petitioner, all actions taken post non execution of the proclamation stand vitiated. 13. Learned aforesaid facts and the position of law as laid down in the aforesaid judgment. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person as well as bearing No.532 Police Station consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner. April 29, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 14756-2025 8 person without following the drill of Section 82 Cr.P.C. Since the proclamation was never served on the petitioner, all actions taken post non of the proclamation stand vitiated. Learned State counsel has not been able to aforesaid facts and the position of law as laid down in the aforesaid judgment. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present is allowed and the impugned order dated vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person as well as 532 dated 09.06.2023 registered under Section 174 Samalkha, District Panipat (Annexure P consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable person without following the drill of Section 82 Cr.P.C. Since the proclamation was never served on the petitioner, all actions taken post non- has not been able to controvert the aforesaid facts and the position of law as laid down in the aforesaid judgment. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present he impugned order dated 29.04.2023 (Annexure P-4) vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person as well as FIR registered under Section 174-A IPC at Samalkha, District Panipat (Annexure P-5) and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.29 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment