131 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA SURJIT 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 Bharatiya Nagarik impugned order dated 01.03.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala (Annexure P proclaimed person in a complaint case bearing COMI No.388 of 03.03.2011 registered under Sections 307/436/427/166/148/149/506 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was aware about the above mentioned complaint case pending against him as he went to America in the year he did not appear before the learned trial Court and was declared as proclaimed person. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner was declared proclaimed person behind his back when he was not in India. He submits that the petitioner complaint filed against him. Further, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SURJIT SINGH V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This is the first petition filed under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) impugned order dated 01.03.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala (Annexure P-3), whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in a complaint case bearing COMI No.388 of 03.03.2011 registered under Sections 307/436/427/166/148/149/506 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was aware about the above mentioned complaint case pending against him as he went to America in the year 2015 and till date, he is residing in USA. As such, he did not appear before the learned trial Court and was declared as proclaimed person. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner was declared proclaimed person behind his back when he was not in He submits that the petitioner never received any notice regarding the complaint filed against him. Further, proclamation was issued against the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-20176-2025 Date of decision: 21.04.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR This is the first petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (528 Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023) seeking quashing of impugned order dated 01.03.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist 3), whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in a complaint case bearing COMI No.388 of 2013 dated 03.03.2011 registered under Sections 307/436/427/166/148/149/506 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not aware about the above mentioned complaint case pending against him as he 2015 and till date, he is residing in USA. As such, he did not appear before the learned trial Court and was declared as Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that petitioner was declared proclaimed person behind his back when he was not in never received any notice regarding the proclamation was issued against the MANISHA 2025.04.21 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-20176 petitioner without followi compliance of the mandatory provisions vitiates the entire proceedings suffers from incurable illegality order is liable to be set aside. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, who is present in the 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 in 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 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. 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 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; 20176-2025 2 without following the drill of Section 82 Cr.P.C. and non compliance of the mandatory provisions vitiates the entire proceedings suffers from incurable illegality as he was never served and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Notice of motion. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, who is present in the 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 ta 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 hy 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. 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 himself. This Court in the judgment passed Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406; ng the drill of Section 82 Cr.P.C. and non- compliance of the mandatory provisions vitiates the entire proceedings, which as he was never served and the impugned 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 tentionally 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 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 hy 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 arbitrariness or unreasonableness. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court issued proclamation 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 2025.04.21 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-20176 2023 (2) Law Herald 1506 satisfaction before issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and non recording of the satisfacti 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 pro absconder are mandatory. Any non an ‘irregularity’ and renders the proclamation and proceedings subsequent 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 (Annexure P-3) person is quashed. 11. The petitioner is directed to appear befo period of six weeks from today and on bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court, along with costs of Rs. Patients Welfare Funds, PGIMER, Chandigarh of the Court. 12. Receipt of payment of cost must be presented before learned trial Court and learned trial Court is directed to verify the same. 20176-2025 3 2023 (2) Law Herald 1506 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 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 319, it has been held that the con (2) Cr.P.C. for the publication of a pro 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 allowed and the impugned ), vide which, the petitioner was quashed. The petitioner is directed to appear befo 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 Patients Welfare Funds, PGIMER, Chandigarh 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- on 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 an ‘irregularity’ and renders 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 order dated 01.03.2018 the petitioner was declared as proclaimed The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within a doing so, he shall be admitted to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the to be deposited with the Poor Patients Welfare Funds, PGIMER, Chandigarh for wasting precious time Receipt of payment of cost must be presented before learned trial Court and learned trial Court is directed to verify the same. MANISHA 2025.04.21 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-20176 13. It is made clear that in the trial Court within a stipulated period, the interim protection granted by this Court shall be deemed to be vacated. April 21, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 20176-2025 4 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 Court shall be deemed to be vacated. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 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 2025.04.21 19:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment