CRM-M-17021 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 122-2 Rupinder Singh State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. 528 of Bhar quashing of order dated learned Judicial Magistrate Sukhwinder Singh v,. Gurdev Singh bearing No. COMI 506 of IPC, 2. grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in 2009 i.e. much prior to filing of the aforesaid with any notice/warrants learned trial Court. proclaimed Section 82 Hence, it is urged that the 17021-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rupinder Singh Versus Punjab and another CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mrs. Kanwal S. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 quashing of order dated 20.04.2019 (Annexure P Judicial Magistrate First Class Sukhwinder Singh v,. Gurdev Singh, arising out of bearing No. COMI-6559-2013, filed under Sections 324, 326, 148, 149 and 506 of IPC, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed 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 falsely implicated in the aforementioned case 2009 i.e. much prior to filing of the aforesaid any notice/warrants at his ordinary place of residence trial Court. Even otherwise, the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person without following the proper procedure prescribed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner is ready to join the Court proceedings. Hence, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-17021-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.03.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA rs. Kanwal S. Walia, Advocate The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section tiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) (Annexure P-1), passed by the Court of First Class, Kapurthala in case titled as arising out of a criminal complaint filed under Sections 324, 326, 148, 149 and whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person. esent 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 residing in Italy since 2009 i.e. much prior to filing of the aforesaid complaint. He was never served at his ordinary place of residence issued by the he petitioner had been declared a following the proper procedure prescribed under The petitioner is ready to join the Court proceedings. impugned order is liable to be set aside. - 2025 (O&M) 28.03.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondents The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section (for short ‘BNSS’) for Court of titled as a criminal complaint filed under Sections 324, 326, 148, 149 and . esent petition has been filed by the petitioner on the grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been He was residing in Italy since complaint. He was never served issued by the he petitioner had been declared a following the proper procedure prescribed under The petitioner is ready to join the Court proceedings. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.02 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17021 3. length and have also gone through the material placed on record. 4. learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed by the learned 82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed person, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 20.04.2019 all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 5. copies of zim 08.03.2019 received back unserved, proclamation against that the learned trial Court before o not recorded its proper satisfaction that was concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence, which was provisions of Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. Reliance upon Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 6. executed only on 23.03.2019 requiring the petitioner to appear before the Court on 26.03.2019, days’ time to cause his appearance before in clear violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., as per which, a 17021-2025 (O&M) 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 proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed , I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 20.04.2019 suffers from material illegalities and is liable to b all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. After going through the material placed on reco copies of zimni orders passed by the learned 08.03.2019, 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 26.03.2019. 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 provisions of Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. Reliance Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. Further, a perusal of the record reveals that the proclamation was executed only on 23.03.2019 requiring the petitioner to appear before the Court on 26.03.2019, which means that the petitioner was granted only time to cause his appearance before the trial Court. Hence, the same was in clear violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., as per which, a -2- I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable 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 e of initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed , I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 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 rdering 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. Further, a perusal of the record reveals that the proclamation was executed only on 23.03.2019 requiring the petitioner to appear before the which means that the petitioner was granted only the trial Court. Hence, the same was in clear violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., as per which, a - derable On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed e of initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed , I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated e quashed with 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 rdering for publication of proclamation has that the petitioner had absconded or was concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot in violation of the in this regard can be placed Further, a perusal of the record reveals that the proclamation was executed only on 23.03.2019 requiring the petitioner to appear before the which means that the petitioner was granted only 03 the trial Court. Hence, the same was in clear violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., as per which, a MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.02 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17021 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 mandat Reliance in this regard can be placed upon State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339. 7. reveals that the proclamation was not read over the town or Section 82 (2) of Cr.P.C. f 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 are conjunctive and not dis publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are proved. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon The State of W.B. : 1973 8. serving police official to the learned trial Court that the petitioner was residing abroad. However, no know about the address of the petitioner in abr sent to him. No letter to Ministry of External Affairs qua service of notice/warrants/proclamation against the petitioner is shown to have been 17021-2025 (O&M) 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 mandat Reliance in this regard can be placed upon State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 and 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339. Further, a perusal of the statement of the serving police officia reveals that the proclamation was not read over the town or village in which the petitioner was supposed to be residing. Section 82 (2) of Cr.P.C. for publication 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 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 part of the house. The three sub-clauses (a)-(c) in Section 82 (2)(i) of 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 Reliance in this regard can be placed upon The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368. A perusal of the record also shows that it was reported by the serving police official to the learned trial Court that the petitioner was residing abroad. However, no efforts whatsoever were made by the Court concerned to know about the address of the petitioner in abr sent to him. No letter to Ministry of External Affairs qua service of notice/warrants/proclamation against the petitioner is shown to have been -3- 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 Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : Further, a perusal of the statement of the serving police officia reveals that the proclamation was not read over in some conspicuous place of r was supposed to be residing. As per 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 ordinarily 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 part of the (c) in Section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C. junctive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. the record also shows that it was reported by the serving police official to the learned trial Court that the petitioner was residing efforts whatsoever were made by the Court concerned to know about the address of the petitioner in abroad, where the process could be sent to him. No letter to Ministry of External Affairs qua service of notice/warrants/proclamation against the petitioner is shown to have been - specified time of not less than 30 days is required to be given to the accused ory in nature. Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : Further, a perusal of the statement of the serving police official in some conspicuous place of As per 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 ordinarily 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 part of the (c) in Section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C. junctive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. the record also shows that it was reported by the serving police official to the learned trial Court that the petitioner was residing efforts whatsoever were made by the Court concerned to oad, where the process could be sent to him. No letter to Ministry of External Affairs qua service of notice/warrants/proclamation against the petitioner is shown to have been MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.02 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17021 written by the trial Court. As such, it can reasonably be presumed that the process never reached the petitioner and hence, he had no occasion to conceal himself. As such, the action of the trial Court by switching to the proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. can itself be stated to be bad in the eyes of law. Reliance in t Punjab : 2013 SCC Online (P&H) 8663 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 complaint be 149 and 506 of IPC, person, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 10. Court proceedings which would obviously help in speedy conclusion of trial, he is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of 06 weeks from today and on doing so, the learned trial Court shall release him bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to its satisfaction. 11. Court, his arrest 12. the learned to be dismissed. 17021-2025 (O&M) written by the trial Court. As such, it can reasonably be presumed that the ess never reached the petitioner and hence, he had no occasion to conceal himself. As such, the action of the trial Court by switching to the proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. can itself be stated to be bad in the eyes of law. Reliance in this context can be placed upon Punjab : 2013 SCC Online (P&H) 8663. 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 titled as Sukhwinder Singh v,. Gurdev Singh complaint bearing No. COMI-6559-2013, filed under Sections 324, 326, 148, 149 and 506 of IPC, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Keeping in view the fact that the petition Court proceedings which would obviously help in speedy conclusion of trial, he is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of 06 weeks from today and on doing so, the learned trial Court shall release him 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. -4- written by the trial Court. As such, it can reasonably be presumed that the ess never reached the petitioner and hence, he had no occasion to conceal himself. As such, the action of the trial Court by switching to the proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. can itself be stated to be bad in the eyes his context can be placed upon Manjit Kaur vs. State of Accordingly, 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 20.04.2019 (Annexure P Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kapurthala in Sukhwinder Singh v,. Gurdev Singh, arising out of a criminal 2013, filed under Sections 324, 326, 148, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is ready to join the Court proceedings which would obviously help in speedy conclusion of trial, he is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of 06 weeks from today and on doing so, the learned trial Court shall release him bail, subject to his furnishing 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 - written by the trial Court. As such, it can reasonably be presumed that the ess never reached the petitioner and hence, he had no occasion to conceal himself. As such, the action of the trial Court by switching to the proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. can itself be stated to be bad in the eyes Manjit Kaur vs. State of and also in , the present 20.04.2019 (Annexure P-1), Kapurthala in , arising out of a criminal 2013, filed under Sections 324, 326, 148, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed er is ready to join the Court proceedings which would obviously help in speedy conclusion of trial, he is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of 06 weeks from today and on doing so, the learned trial Court shall release him on learned trial It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before , this petition shall be deemed MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.02 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17021 13. Rs. 5,000/ which shall be disbursed to respondent No. 2/complainant on his appearance. 28.03.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 17021-2025 (O&M) However, this relief shall be subject to payment of cost of ,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner with the learned trial Court which shall be disbursed to respondent No. 2/complainant on his appearance. .03.2025 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 learned trial Court which shall be disbursed to respondent No. 2/complainant on his appearance. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No - However, this relief shall be subject to payment of cost of , to be deposited by the petitioner with the learned trial Court, which shall be disbursed to respondent No. 2/complainant on his appearance. MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.02 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document