152 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA JASPAL SINGH STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. The present petition has been filed 2023 for quashing of FIR No.309 dated 02.04.2023 registered under Section 174-A IPC at Police Station Civil Line, Sirsa (Annexure P case bearing No.NACT/522/2022 titled as Section 138 NI Act before the learned J all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed against the petitioner, wherein th dated 24.03.2023 and subsequently, FIR ( 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that made the entire payment to the complainant. Further, the complainant has withdrawn the complaint on learned trial Court. was never served a drill of Section 82 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH JASPAL SINGH V/S HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed quashing of FIR No.309 dated 02.04.2023 registered under Section A IPC at Police Station Civil Line, Sirsa (Annexure P case bearing No.NACT/522/2022 titled as ‘Vipin vs. Jaspal’ Section 138 NI Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same. The brief facts of the present case are that a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed against the , wherein the petitioner was declared as proclaimed .2023 and subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that made the entire payment to the complainant. Further, the complainant has withdrawn the complaint on 09.01.2025, which was pending before the learned trial Court. Learned counsel furthermore submits that the petitioner never served and was declared proclaimed person without following the drill of Section 82 Cr.P.C. Further, the mandatory drill of Section 195 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-20116-2025 Date of decision: 09.04.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate for the petitioner. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, quashing of FIR No.309 dated 02.04.2023 registered under Section A IPC at Police Station Civil Line, Sirsa (Annexure P-1) arising out of ‘Vipin vs. Jaspal’ registered under udicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa and all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same. The brief facts of the present case are that a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed against the declared as proclaimed person vide order ) was registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made the entire payment to the complainant. Further, the complainant has .01.2025, which was pending before the Learned counsel furthermore submits that the petitioner declared proclaimed person without following the Further, the mandatory drill of Section 195 Cr.P.C. MANISHA 2025.04.09 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-20116 has also not been followed 4. Notice of motion. 5. Ms. Geeta Sharma, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 passed by the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put in appearance before the trial Court intentionally and delib therefore, having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure his presence. However, she could not controvert the fact that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the complaint (supra) stands withdrawn by the 6. I have heard learned counsel for the record of the case with disposal. 7. Section 174 Amendment Act of 2005, and a 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 identi removed from the purview of Section 215 of the Bhartiya Nag Sanhita, 2023 which mirrors Section 195 of Section 195 of the Cr 20116-2025 2 has also not been followed in its letter and spirit by the trial Court. Notice of motion. Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1- passed by the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put in appearance before the trial Court intentionally and delib therefore, having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure However, she could not controvert the fact that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the complaint (supra) stands withdrawn by the complainant. have heard learned counsel for the record of the case with their able assistance, the matter is taken up for final 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 Section 174 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 which mirrors Section 195 of Cr.P.C. Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. clearly encompasses Section 174 in its letter and spirit by the trial Court. 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 However, she could not controvert the fact that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the complaint (supra) stands have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the able assistance, the matter is taken up for final A of the IPC was introduced through the 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 cal. However, Section 209 has been explicitly removed from the purview of Section 215 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Cr.P.C. In its present form, thus, clearly encompasses Section 174-A IPC, as the MANISHA 2025.04.09 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-20116 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 provide for a particular procedure in a c servant. The of offences enumerated therein. The legislative intent behind such a provision has been that an individual should not face crimina 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 t Section 190 in motion by making a complaint, as it prohibits the cognizance of certain offences unt 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 requirements ar an offence described in those Sections. (vide of Bihar, AIR 1971 The State of Gujarat, AIR 1971 20116-2025 3 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 was made to Section f 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 provide for a particular 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 crimina 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 has 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 bar that unless some 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 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 in 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 ase 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 provision has been that 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 he 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 il 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 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 & MANISHA 2025.04.09 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-20116 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 general jurisdiction of the interpretation otherwise." 20116-2025 4 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 general jurisdiction of the court interpretation unless the statute or the context requires otherwise." 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 must normally receive strict unless the statute or the context requires (Emphasis supplied) MANISHA 2025.04.09 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-20116 24. In Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 this Court Section 195 been taken on the police report by the Magist therein had been tried and convicted, though the concerned public 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 pas 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 would vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders. The case without such complaint. In the absence of such a compla 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 administratively subordinate. This 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 21(3) of the IPC defines "public servant" to include every judge or any person empowered by law to perform adjudicatory functions, either in part of a body. 20116-2025 5 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 Magist therein had been tried and convicted, though the concerned public 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 pas in view of the above, the 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 ovisions 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 compla 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 rovision 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 21(3) of the IPC defines "public servant" to include every judge or any person empowered by law to perform adjudicatory functions, either in As a result, from the plain language of Section 195 of the 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 aint 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. compliance of it would 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 another public servant to whom they are administratively subordinate. This rovision 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 gnizance can only be taken on a written ourt under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.. Further, Section 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 rom the plain language of Section 195 of the MANISHA 2025.04.09 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-20116 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 t for the offence under Section 174 would have been to file a written complaint before the competent jurisdictional court. However, instead of adhering to this legal req 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 enshrin 11. 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 20116-2025 6 , it is clear that criminal prosecution under Sections 172 to 188 of the IPC can only be initiated through a written complaint filed by the concerned 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 req merely forwarded a copy of its orders to the local police, directing 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 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 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 thy balance between personal liberty of the individual interests of the society in promoting law and order. Such procedure must be 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 o initiate proceedings against the petitioners 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 provisions. Consequently, both the order passed by the Magistrate directing the initiation of proceedings and the resulting FIR stand contrary to the ed 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 that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain thy balance between personal liberty of the individual-accused and interests of the society in promoting law and order. Such procedure must be MANISHA 2025.04.09 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-20116 compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice 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 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 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 a reasons to indicate that the petitioner 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 @ (Criminal) 406; 2023 (2) Law Herald 1506 required to record its satisfaction before issuance of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and non from incurable illegality. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a specific stand that the petitioner 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. 20116-2025 7 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 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 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 a reasons to indicate that the petitioner has absconded or 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 from incurable illegality. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a specific stand that the petitioner was person without following the drill of Section 82 Cr.P.C. Since the was never served on the petitioner, all actions taken post non execution of the proclamation stand vitiated. compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. t 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 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 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 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 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 was declared to be a proclaimed person without following the drill of Section 82 Cr.P.C. Since the was never served on the petitioner, all actions taken post non- the appearance, the presence of the MANISHA 2025.04.09 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-20116 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 Section 174-A IPC at Police Station Civil Line, Sirsa (Annexure P the consequential proceedings emanating th the petitioner. April 09, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 20116-2025 8 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 petition is allowed and the FIR No.309 dated 02.04.2023 registered under A IPC at Police Station Civil Line, Sirsa (Annexure P the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed qua (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 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 FIR No.309 dated 02.04.2023 registered under A IPC at Police Station Civil Line, Sirsa (Annexure P-1) and all erefrom, are hereby quashed qua HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.04.09 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment