CRM-M-18285 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 133 Harbhajan Kaur and another State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. Section 528 of for quashing of order dated of learned Ravail Singh and others registered under Sections the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Valtoha, District Tarn Taran the petitioner 2. grounds and it has been argued by implicated in FIR. However, on the basis of a subsequent inquiry conducted by the police, they were arraigned as accused. also got registered a cross case against the complainant party. application moved by 18285-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Harbhajan Kaur and another Versus of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Gobind Singh Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of order dated 24.01.2025 (Annexure P of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ravail Singh and others, arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections 307, 323, 324, 34 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Valtoha, District Tarn Taran the petitioners had been declared as proclaimed The present petition has been filed by the petitioner grounds and it has been argued by their counsel that th implicated in the aforementioned case. The petitioners were not named FIR. However, on the basis of a subsequent inquiry conducted by the police, they were arraigned as accused. It is further submitted that the petitioners have also got registered a cross case against the complainant party. application moved by the Investigating Officer on 20.11.2024 before the -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18285-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.04.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Gobind Singh Randhawa, Advocate Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab. been filed by the petitioners under tiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) Annexure P-5), passed by the Court Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patti in case titled as State vs. , arising out of FIR No. 81 dated 27.07.2023 307, 323, 324, 34 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Valtoha, District Tarn Taran, whereby proclaimed offenders. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners on the counsel that they have been falsely The petitioners were not named in the FIR. However, on the basis of a subsequent inquiry conducted by the police, It is further submitted that the petitioners have also got registered a cross case against the complainant party. On an the Investigating Officer on 20.11.2024 before the - 2025 (O&M) 03.04.2025 ...Petitioners ...Respondent under (for short ‘BNSS’) Court State vs. 27.07.2023, 307, 323, 324, 34 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of whereby on the been falsely in the FIR. However, on the basis of a subsequent inquiry conducted by the police, It is further submitted that the petitioners have On an the Investigating Officer on 20.11.2024 before the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.04 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18285 learned Magistrate, arrest warrants were issued against the petitioners and they were ultimately declared as proclaimed offenders by passing the impugned order. the learned proclaimed law. They impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. resisted the petition by submitting that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the petitioner as they were petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. and have also gone through the material placed on record. 5. learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed by the learned proclamation proclaimed dated 24.01.2025 with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 6. copies of zim 13.12.2024 received back unserved, 18285-2025 (O&M) learned Magistrate, arrest warrants were issued against the petitioners and they were ultimately declared as proclaimed offenders by passing the impugned order. They were never served learned trial Court. More so, the petitioner proclaimed offenders without following the proper procedure prescribed under are ready to join the Court proceedings. impugned order is liable to be set aside. Per contra, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has resisted the petition by submitting that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the petitioners have rightly been declared a they were running away from the process of Court. It is, thus, 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 proceedings proclamation as against the petitioners proclaimed offenders, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order 24.01.2025 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 13.12.2024, since the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner received back unserved, the learned trial Court had ordered for issuance of -2- learned Magistrate, arrest warrants were issued against the petitioners and they were ultimately declared as proclaimed offenders by passing the never served with any notice/warrants issued by he petitioners had been declared a following the proper procedure prescribed under ready to join the Court proceedings. Hence, it is urged that the , learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has resisted the petition by submitting that there is no infirmity in the impugned rightly been declared as proclaimed offenders running away from the process of Court. It is, thus, urged that the 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 till the date of declaring them as , I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order 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 petitioners were trial Court had ordered for issuance of - learned Magistrate, arrest warrants were issued against the petitioners and they were ultimately declared as proclaimed offenders by passing the ants issued by had been declared as following the proper procedure prescribed under Hence, it is urged that the , learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has resisted the petition by submitting that there is no infirmity in the impugned offenders running away from the process of Court. It is, thus, urged that the 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 trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings of them as , I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed rd as well as the revealed that on were trial Court had ordered for issuance of MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.04 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18285 proclamation against that the learned trial Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has not recorded its proper satisfaction that were concealing cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. Reliance placed upon 7. that the proclamation was executed on 27.12.2024 cause their means that the petitioner cause their clear violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., as per whi 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 State of Mysore : 1969 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339. 8. view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities petition is allowed and the impugned order dated passed by the titled as State vs. 27.07.2023, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Valtoha, District Tarn 18285-2025 (O&M) proclamation against them for 24.01.2025. that the learned trial Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has not recorded its proper satisfaction that that the concealing themselves 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 ed upon Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. A perusal of the statement of the serving police official reveals that the proclamation was executed on 27.12.2024 their appearance before the learned means that the petitioners were not granted mandatory period of 30 days to their appearance before the learned trial Court. Hence, the same was in clear violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., as per whi 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 State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 and 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339. 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, State vs. Ravail Singh and others 27.07.2023, registered under Sections 307, 323, 324, 34 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Valtoha, District Tarn -3- . A bare perusal of this order shows that the learned trial Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has that the petitioners had absconded or 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 Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561. statement of the serving police official reveals that the proclamation was executed on 27.12.2024, requiring the petitioner learned trial Court on 24.01.2025, which not granted mandatory period of 30 days to appearance before the learned trial Court. 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 Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : 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 24.01.2025 (Annexure P Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patti in case Ravail Singh and others, arising out of FIR No. 81 dated registered under Sections 307, 323, 324, 34 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Valtoha, District Tarn - A bare perusal of this order shows that the learned trial Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has had absconded or so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of in this regard can be statement of the serving police official reveals requiring the petitioners to which not granted mandatory period of 30 days to appearance before the learned trial Court. Hence, the same was in ch, 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. Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : and also in , the present 24.01.2025 (Annexure P-5), case , arising out of FIR No. 81 dated registered under Sections 307, 323, 324, 34 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Valtoha, District Tarn MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.04 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18285 Taran, whereby the petitioner quashed with all consequential proceeding 9. Court concerned within a period of four weeks, subject to order for grant of anticipatory bail, if any passed on of BNSS. I such surrender, the petitioner custody subject to any order for grant of regular bail to be passed by the concerned Court in accordance with law. 10. the concerned Court for grant of regular bail, then the concerned Court shall be bound to dispose of the same expeditiously and that nothing in this order shall be treated as expression o influence the concerned Court in disposal of the same. 11. arrest shall remai 12. the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today, this petition shall be deemed to be dismissed. 03.04.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 18285-2025 (O&M) whereby the petitioners had been declared quashed with all consequential proceeding However, the petitioners are Court concerned within a period of four weeks, subject to order for grant of anticipatory bail, if any passed on their petition to be filed under Section . In the absence of any order for grant of anticipatory bail and on such surrender, the petitioners shall be liable to be remanded to judicial custody subject to any order for grant of regular bail to be passed by the concerned Court in accordance with law. Needless to observe that in case any application is filed before the concerned Court for grant of regular bail, then the concerned Court shall be bound to dispose of the same expeditiously and that nothing in this order shall be treated as expression of any opinion on merits so as to bind or influence the concerned Court in disposal of the same. Till the appearance of the petitioner hall remain stayed. It is made clear that in case the petitioner the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today, this petition shall be deemed to be dismissed. 03.04.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -4- had been declared as proclaimed offenders quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. s are directed to surrender before the Court concerned within a period of four weeks, subject to order for grant of petition to be filed under Section n the absence of any order for grant of anticipatory bail and on shall be liable to be remanded to judicial custody subject to any order for grant of regular bail to be passed by the Needless to observe that in case any application is filed before the concerned Court for grant of regular bail, then the concerned Court shall be bound to dispose of the same expeditiously and that nothing in this order f any opinion on merits so as to bind or influence the concerned Court in disposal of the same. Till the appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court, their It is made clear that in case the petitioners fail to appear before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today, this petition shall be (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No - offenders, is directed to surrender before the Court concerned within a period of four weeks, subject to order for grant of petition to be filed under Section 482 n the absence of any order for grant of anticipatory bail and on shall be liable to be remanded to judicial custody subject to any order for grant of regular bail to be passed by the Needless to observe that in case any application is filed before the concerned Court for grant of regular bail, then the concerned Court shall be bound to dispose of the same expeditiously and that nothing in this order f any opinion on merits so as to bind or their fail to appear before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today, this petition shall be MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.04 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document