CRM-M-19730 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 142 Inder Parkash Dogra State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. 528 of Bhar 10.10.2012 Magistrate First Class, 29.03.2005, filed under Sections 302, 201, 506 and 34 of IPC, petitioner had been declared a proclaimed 2. falsely implicated in registered an FIR bearing No. 226 dated 28.12.004, under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of IPC at Police Station Hariana. However, on an application filed by the prosecuti dated 09.02.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner, on the same set of allegations, had filed the aforesaid complainant, which was not in the knowledge of the petitioner 19730-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Inder Parkash Dogra Versus Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, Advocate Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Ritu Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 10.10.2012 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Magistrate First Class, Hoshiarpur in Criminal Complaint No. 148 dated 29.03.2005, filed under Sections 302, 201, 506 and 34 of IPC, petitioner had been declared a proclaimed It is argued by learned counsel for the petition falsely implicated in the aforementioned registered an FIR bearing No. 226 dated 28.12.004, under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of IPC at Police Station Hariana. However, on an application filed by the prosecution, the petitioner was discharged from the said case, vide order dated 09.02.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner, on the same set of allegations, had filed the aforesaid complainant, which was not in the knowledge of the as the petitioner was residing abroad. Similarly situated co -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19730-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.04.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Manoj Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate and The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section tiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of order dated , passed by the Court of learned Judicial Criminal Complaint No. 148 dated 29.03.2005, filed under Sections 302, 201, 506 and 34 of IPC, whereby the person. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been the aforementioned case. The complainant has got registered an FIR bearing No. 226 dated 28.12.004, under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of IPC at Police Station Hariana. However, on an application filed by on, the petitioner was discharged from the said case, vide order dated 09.02.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner, on the same set of allegations, had filed the aforesaid complainant, which was not in the knowledge of the ing abroad. Similarly situated co-accused - 2025 (O&M) .04.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section for quashing of order dated Judicial Criminal Complaint No. 148 dated whereby the er that he has been The complainant has got registered an FIR bearing No. 226 dated 28.12.004, under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of IPC at Police Station Hariana. However, on an application filed by on, the petitioner was discharged from the said case, vide order dated 09.02.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner, on the same set of allegations, had filed the aforesaid complainant, which was not in the knowledge of the accused MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.09 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19730 Baldev Kumar has been acquitted by the learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 10.02.2015. never served with any notice/warrants issued by the so, the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person without proper procedure prescribed under Section 82 the Court proceedings. be set aside. 3. length and have also gone through the material placed on record. 4. learned counsel 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 10.10.2012 all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 5. copies of zim 03.09.2012 received back unserved, proclamation against i.e. Times of India Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has not recorded its proper satisfaction that himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, 19730-2025 (O&M) Baldev Kumar has been acquitted by the learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 10.02.2015. The petitioner could not appear before the Court as he was never served with any notice/warrants issued by the he petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person without proper procedure prescribed under Section 82 the Court proceedings. Hence, it is urged that the be set aside. 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 10.10.2012 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 03.09.2012, 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 26.09.2012 by way of publication in newspaper i.e. Times of India. A bare perusal of this order shows that the learned trial Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has not recorded its proper satisfaction that that the petitioner had abscond so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, -2- Baldev Kumar has been acquitted by the learned trial Court, vide judgment petitioner could not appear before the Court as he was never served with any notice/warrants issued by the learned trial Court. More he petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person without following the proper procedure prescribed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. He is ready to join Hence, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to 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 for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed 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 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 26.09.2012 by way of publication in newspaper A bare perusal of this order shows that the learned trial Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has not recorded its that the petitioner had absconded or was concealing so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, - Baldev Kumar has been acquitted by the learned trial Court, vide judgment petitioner could not appear before the Court as he was ial Court. More following the He is ready to join impugned order is liable to at considerable On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed 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 opinion that the impugned order dated suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed with rd as well as the revealed that on bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were trial Court had ordered for issuance of 26.09.2012 by way of publication in newspaper A bare perusal of this order shows that the learned trial Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has not recorded its ed or was concealing so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.09 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19730 despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. Reliance Kumar Vs. of Cr.P.C., the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides. However, the learned trial Court ha only resorted to publication in the newspaper, which was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. 6. petitioner was 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 t 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 proceedin can itself be stated to be bad in the eyes of law. Reliance in this context can be placed upon 8663. 7. view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities petition is allowed and the impugned order dated passed by the Criminal Complaint No. 148 dated 29.03.2005, filed under Sections 302, 201, 19730-2025 (O&M) 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 upon Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561 of Cr.P.C., the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides. However, the learned trial Court ha resorted to publication in the newspaper, which was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. A perusal of order dated 03.09.2012 itself reveals that the petitioner was reported to be residing abroad. However, no 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 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 proceedin can itself be stated to be bad in the eyes of law. Reliance in this context can be placed upon Manjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab : 2013 SCC Online (P&H) Accordingly, in view of the discussion as made above iew 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, Criminal Complaint No. 148 dated 29.03.2005, filed under Sections 302, 201, -3- despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of the provisions of in this regard can be placed upon Rohit 2561. Further, as per Section 82(2)(ii) of Cr.P.C., the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides. However, the learned trial Court ha resorted to publication in the newspaper, which was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. A perusal of order dated 03.09.2012 itself reveals that the residing abroad. However, no 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 o have been 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 this context can be Manjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab : 2013 SCC Online (P&H) Accordingly, in view of the discussion as made above and also in iew of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure P Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshiarpur in Criminal Complaint No. 148 dated 29.03.2005, filed under Sections 302, 201, - despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of the provisions of Rohit Further, as per Section 82(2)(ii) of Cr.P.C., the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides. However, the learned trial Court has resorted to publication in the newspaper, which was not in accordance A perusal of order dated 03.09.2012 itself reveals that the atsoever 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 o have been 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 gs under Section 82 Cr.P.C. can itself be stated to be bad in the eyes of law. Reliance in this context can be Manjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab : 2013 SCC Online (P&H) and also in , the present 10.10.2012 (Annexure P-5), Hoshiarpur in Criminal Complaint No. 148 dated 29.03.2005, filed under Sections 302, 201, MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.09 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19730 506 and 34 of IPC, person, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 8. 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 04 weeks from today and on doing so, the learned trial Court shall bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to its satisfaction. 9. Court, his arrest 10. the learned to be dismissed. 09.04.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 19730-2025 (O&M) 506 and 34 of IPC, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed , is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Keeping in view the fact that 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 04 weeks from today and on doing so, the learned trial Court shall 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 t learned trial Court within the stipulated time to be dismissed. .04.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -4- 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 04 weeks from today and on doing so, the learned trial Court shall release him on 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 (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No - whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed 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 04 release him on learned trial o appear before , this petition shall be deemed MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.09 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document