138 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA SUKHWINDER SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. Narinder Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This is the first petition filed under Section 528 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) dated 27.02.2023 (Annexure P-1 absconder in case bearing No.NACT 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner was declared as proclaimed absconder appearance of the petitioner before deliberate. It is further submitted that a settlement has been arrived the petitioner and cheque amount to withdrawn the case pending before the learned trial Court. Moreover, proclamation was issued against the petitioner Section 82 Cr.P.C. and non IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SUKHWINDER SINGH V/S PUNJAB AND ANOTHER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Amandeep Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narinder Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This is the first petition filed under Section 528 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking quashing of impugned order 27.02.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar 10), whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed in case filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 bearing No.NACT-8 of 2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner was declared as proclaimed absconder appearance of the petitioner before the learned trial Court, which was not It is further submitted that a settlement has been arrived the petitioner and the complainant, whereby, the petitioner has paid cheque amount to the complainant. Pursuant thereto, th withdrawn the case pending before the learned trial Court. Moreover, proclamation was issued against the petitioner Section 82 Cr.P.C. and non-compliance of the mandatory provisions vitiates IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22919-2025 Date of decision: 30.04.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR This is the first petition filed under Section 528 Bharatiya , 2023 seeking quashing of impugned order Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar oner was declared as proclaimed f Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was declared as proclaimed absconder on account of non- the learned trial Court, which was not It is further submitted that a settlement has been arrived at between , whereby, the petitioner has paid the entire Pursuant thereto, the complainant has withdrawn the case pending before the learned trial Court. Moreover, without following the drill of compliance of the mandatory provisions vitiates MANISHA 2025.05.01 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-22919 the entire proceedings served and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, 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 his presence. However, 82 Cr.P.C. was not absconder and the fact that 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 6. While the 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 arbitrariness or unreasonableness. 7. A perusal of the impugned order rev 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; 22919-2025 2 edings, which suffers from incurable illegality served and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Notice of motion. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, 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, ore, having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure However, he could not controvert the fact that the drill of Section Cr.P.C. was not followed before declaring the petitioner as proclaimed absconder and the fact that compromise has been effected between the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance, the matter is taken up for final While the scheme of criminal justice system 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 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 rev proclamation without recording reasons of its belief that the petitioner has absconded or is concealing himself. This Court in the judgment passed in Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406; which suffers from incurable illegality as he was never served and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 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 in appearance before the trial Court intentionally and deliberately and, ore, having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure he could not controvert the fact that the drill of Section declaring the petitioner as proclaimed compromise has been effected between the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance, the matter is taken up for final 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-accused and 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 . This Court in the judgment passed in Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406; MANISHA 2025.05.01 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-22919 2023 (2) Law Herald 1506 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 j 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 319 Section 82 (2) Cr.P.C. for the publication of a proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. Any non an ‘irregularity’ and renders the proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity. 8. The sole purpose of issuance of non of proclamation is to secure presence of the accused before the trial petitioner in the present case has complaint (supra 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the ratio of law laid down in petition is allowed 10), vide which quashed. April 30, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 22919-2025 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 proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. Any non-compliance therewi 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 petitioner in the present case has himself come forward. supra) has already been withdrawn on the basis of compromise. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the ratio of law laid down in Major Singh @ Major petition is allowed and the impugned order dated vide which, the petitioner was declared (HARPREET Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 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 udgment 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. Moreover, the ) has already been withdrawn on the basis of compromise. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of jor Singh @ Major (supra), the present dated 27.02.2023 (Annexure P- as proclaimed absconder is HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.01 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment