127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA LOVEPREET SINGH ALIAS NAVPREET SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB AND CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This is the first petition filed under Section 528 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) dated 06.01.2024 (Annexure P-10 in case DDR No.28 dated 16.06.2015 registered under Sections 307/341/336/427/148/149 of IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act, 1959 in stemming from FIR No. 336, 148, 149 of Indian P Makhu, Disstrict Ferozepur. 2. Lea case of version and cross compromise was filed recording of statements before the Magistrate. The said statements were recorded on 07.11.2019 and the matter remained pending on account of Covid-19 Pandemic. Subsequent thereto IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LOVEPREET SINGH ALIAS NAVPREET SINGH V/S PUNJAB AND ANOTHER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Lakhan Paul Garg, Advocate for Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This is the first petition filed under Section 528 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking quashing of impugned order 06.01.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Zira 0), whereby the petitioner was declare case DDR No.28 dated 16.06.2015 registered under Sections 307/341/336/427/148/149 of IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act, 1959 in stemming from FIR No.90 dated 16.06.2015 registered under Sections 336, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code and 25/27 of Arms Act Makhu, Disstrict Ferozepur. earned counsel for the petitioner submits case of version and cross-version. A petition for quashing on the basis of compromise was filed, whereby, this Court had directed recording of statements before the Magistrate. The said statements were recorded on 07.11.2019 and the matter remained pending on account of 19 Pandemic. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24649-2025 Date of decision: 08.05.2025 LOVEPREET SINGH ALIAS NAVPREET SINGH ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS HARPREET SINGH BRAR for This is the first petition filed under Section 528 Bharatiya , 2023 seeking quashing of impugned order Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Zira ), whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender case DDR No.28 dated 16.06.2015 registered under Sections 307/341/336/427/148/149 of IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act, 1959 in cross-case registered under Sections 307, and 25/27 of Arms Act at Police Station rned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was a version. A petition for quashing on the basis of this Court had directed the parties for recording of statements before the Magistrate. The said statements were recorded on 07.11.2019 and the matter remained pending on account of , the petitioner was declared MANISHA 2025.05.08 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-24649 proclaimed offender on 06.01.2024. On 10. of the FIR on the basis of the compromise was withdrawn on account of the fact that the FIR had been registered under Section 307 IPC. He contends that the absence of the petitioner was completely compromised the matter recorded before the Illaqa Magistrate on 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner proclamation was issued against the petitioner Section 82 Cr.P.C. and non the entire proceedings served and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. situated co-accused, namely, Hardial Singh and others have Court by way of filing a petition bearing quashing of the impugned order, vide which, they were declared proclaimed offenders and this Court has allowed t 4. Notice of motion. 5. 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 no 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, he could not controvert the fact that the parties have amicably settled the 6. Mr. of respondent No.2 and files his memo of appearance. He 24649-2025 2 proclaimed offender on 06.01.2024. On 10.01.2024, the petition for quashing of the FIR on the basis of the compromise was withdrawn on account of the fact that the FIR had been registered under Section 307 IPC. He contends that the absence of the petitioner was completely compromised the matter, in furtherance of which recorded before the Illaqa Magistrate on 07.11.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner proclamation was issued against the petitioner Section 82 Cr.P.C. and non-compliance of the mandatory provisions vitiates the entire proceedings, which suffers from incurable illegality served and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. accused, namely, Hardial Singh and others have Court by way of filing a petition bearing CRM quashing of the impugned order, vide which, they were declared proclaimed offenders and this Court has allowed the said petition. 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 no in appearance before the trial Court intentionally and deliberately and, therefore, having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure However, he could not controvert the fact that the parties have amicably settled the matter. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Saini, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and files his memo of appearance. He 01.2024, the petition for quashing of the FIR on the basis of the compromise was withdrawn on account of the fact that the FIR had been registered under Section 307 IPC. He contends that the absence of the petitioner was completely bona fide as the parties have in furtherance of which, their statements had been 07.11.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that without following the drill of compliance of the mandatory provisions vitiates which suffers from incurable illegality as he was never served and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Further, similarly accused, namely, Hardial Singh and others have approached this CRM-M-22959 of 2024, seeking quashing of the impugned order, vide which, they were declared proclaimed he said petition. 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, therefore, having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure However, he could not controvert the fact that the parties have Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and files his memo of appearance. He submits that the MANISHA 2025.05.08 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-24649 parties have settled their dispute amicably and a compromise has been effected. Even the parties have approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR (supra), on the basis of compromise and he has no objection if the present petition is allowed. 7. I have record of the case with disposal. 8. While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, i 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 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. 9. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court issued proclamation without recording absconded or is concealing Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406; 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 judgment passed by this Court in 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 319 Section 82 (2) Cr.P.C. for the publication of a proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. Any non 24649-2025 3 parties have settled their dispute amicably and a compromise has been effected. Even the parties have approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR , on the basis of compromise and he has no objection if the present petition is allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the record of the case with their able assistance, the matter is taken up for final While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, i 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 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 in 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 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 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 therewith cannot be cured as parties have settled their dispute amicably and a compromise has been effected. Even the parties have approached this Court seeking quashing of FIR , on the basis of compromise and he has no objection if the present 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 a healthy 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 and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court issued 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; 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 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 MANISHA 2025.05.08 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-24649 an ‘irregularity’ and renders the proclamatio thereto a nullity. 10. 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 11. 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 subject to a cost of Rs.10,000/ Welfare Funds, PGIMER, Chandigarh Court. 12. Liberty is granted to the petitio Court for grant of bail in accordance with law. 13. Receipt of payment of cost must be presented before learned trial Court and learned trial Court is directed to verify the same. May 08, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 24649-2025 4 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 petition is allowed and the impugned order dated vide which, the petitioner was declared subject to a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with Welfare Funds, PGIMER, Chandigarh for wasting the precious time of this Liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court for grant of bail in accordance with law. Receipt of payment of cost must be presented before learned trial Court and learned trial Court is directed to verify the same. (HARPREET SINGH Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable n 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 dated 06.01.2024 (Annexure P- declared as proclaimed offender is to be deposited with Poor Patients for wasting the precious time of this ner to approach the appropriate Receipt of payment of cost must be presented before learned trial Court and learned trial Court is directed to verify the same. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.08 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment