CRM-M-59031 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 153 SIMRAN KAUR DHANDI STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SURYA P referred to as ‘impugned order’ First Class Pathankot under challenge in the present petition under Section hereinafter referred to as 2. during the of Negotiable Instruments Act person. 59031-2025 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH SIMRAN KAUR DHANDI VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Advocate Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG Punjab Mr. G.S. Bhinder, Advocate for the respondent No.2. SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The order dated 29.10.2022 referred to as ‘impugned order’, passed by the learned First Class Pathankot, hereinafter being under challenge in the present petition. The present under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’ only. By virtue of abovementioned order, t during the trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section of Negotiable Instruments Act, declared IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-59031-2025 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 24.03.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH S.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG Punjab. Mr. G.S. Bhinder, Advocate for the respondent No.2. (Annexure P-14), hereinafter being passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only . The present petition has been filed Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, By virtue of abovementioned order, the learned trial Court fence punishable under Section 138 declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed (O&M) .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENTS , hereinafter being Magistrate only, is filed , 2023, he learned trial Court, 138 proclaimed GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-59031 3. petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act appearance against the petitioner. H petitioner 4. Court issued proclamation against the petitioner for 03.09.2022 duly effected and notice to serving Constable was issued for virtue of impugned order, statement of executing Constable person. 5. that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), declaring the petitioner a proclaimed specifically alleged by read, as required 6. 7. respondent with. 59031-2025 (O&M) 2 In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under 138 of NI Act and in the abovementioned case appearance on various occasions, the non against the petitioner. However, the same could not be executed petitioner was not living at that place. Subsequently, vide order dated issued proclamation against the petitioner for 03.09.2022 proclamation issued against the effected and the statutory period of notice to serving Constable was issued for virtue of impugned order, the learned trial Court statement of executing Constable, declared The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person specifically alleged by the petitioner that the proclamation was not publicly required under the law. Notice of motion. Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG Punjab respondent-State. Hence service of notice shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under in the abovementioned case due to non non-bailable warrants were issued owever, the same could not be executed as the Subsequently, vide order dated 17.05.2022, the learned trial issued proclamation against the petitioner for 03.09.2022. proclamation issued against the petitioner was received back the statutory period of 30 days’ had elapsed. On that day, notice to serving Constable was issued for 29.10.2022 and on that day, the learned trial Court, after recording the declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), was not complied with, while person. In this regard, it has been the petitioner that the proclamation was not publicly Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG Punjab appears on behalf of service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under due to non- issued as the learned trial On received back had elapsed. On that day, and on that day, by after recording the proclaimed The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the , while . In this regard, it has been the petitioner that the proclamation was not publicly appears on behalf of is hereby dispensed GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-59031 8. the respondent No.2 and filed Power of Attorney. The same be taken on record. 9. 10. was never served with any summons as 2021. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case, the executing proclamation at a public place. 11. counsel for to serve the defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, petitioner to be aside. 12. abovementioned arguments. He has contended petitioner is a person, who right from the very pendency of criminal proceedings against the Court and remained absent in view of above 59031-2025 (O&M) 3 Mr. G.S. Bhinder, Advocate has put in appearance o the respondent No.2 and filed Power of Attorney. The same be taken on Heard. It has been contended on behalf of was never served with any summons as . As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the essential steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case, the executing Constable proclamation at a public place. In addition to above, it has counsel for the petitioner that no effort was made by the learned trial Court the process upon the petitioner at defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, itioner to be a proclaimed person, the impugned order is liable to be set The learned State Counsel has abovementioned arguments. He has contended petitioner is a person, who right from the very pendency of criminal proceedings against the Court and remained absent for a long in view of above, the petitioner cannot derive Mr. G.S. Bhinder, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No.2 and filed Power of Attorney. The same be taken on It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner was never served with any summons as she had left the country in August . As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. According to learned counsel for the s to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in Constable had not publicly read the In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned no effort was made by the learned trial Court at her correct address, and that due to defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, in declaring the , the impugned order is liable to be set The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. He has contended that in the present case, the petitioner is a person, who right from the very beginning was aware of the pendency of criminal proceedings against her, but opted not to appear before time. As per learned State Counsel, derive any benefit from the technical n behalf of the respondent No.2 and filed Power of Attorney. The same be taken on petitioner that the petitioner August . As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. According to learned counsel for the s to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in had not publicly read the contended by learned no effort was made by the learned trial Court due to declaring the , the impugned order is liable to be set controverted the present case, the beginning was aware of the , but opted not to appear before . As per learned State Counsel, technical GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-59031 defect, if any, which might declaring the petitioner 13. 14. record the trial Court, statement of reads as under 15. executing publicly read the contents of 29.10.2022 executing 16. Executing Constable, it is relevant to mention CrPC lays down declaring a person to be a proclaimed person: 59031-2025 (O&M) 4 defect, if any, which might have occurred inadvertently, in the process of declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner ha the copy of statement of executing trial Court, before declaring the petitioner statement of executing official, namely ASI Pawan Kumar reads as under:- “It is requested that three copies of proclamation of accused Simran Kaur Dhandi marked by SHO PS Division No.2 on 03/05/2022. That on 02/06/2022 after going to the given address of accused H.No. 10 Sunder Nagar, Dhangu Road, one copy of proclamation was paste the accused and on the same day second copy of proclamation was affixed on notice board of Hon’ble Court and third copy of proclamation along with my report is send back A bare perusal of the above executing official shows that the above- publicly read the contents of abovementioned 29.10.2022 shows that on the basis of above executing official, the petitioner has been declared With regard to the above-mentioned procedure adopted by the Executing Constable, it is relevant to mention lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a person to be a proclaimed person: “(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows: (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place have occurred inadvertently, in the process of to be a proclaimed person. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has placed on executing official, recorded by the learned the petitioner to be proclaimed person. The ASI Pawan Kumar dated 02.06.2022 is requested that three copies of proclamation of accused Simran Kaur Dhandi marked by SHO PS Division No.2 on 03/05/2022. That on 02/06/2022 after going to the given address of accused H.No. 10 Sunder Nagar, Dhangu Road, one was pasted on the main door of house of the accused and on the same day second copy of proclamation was affixed on notice board of Hon’ble Court and third copy of my report is send back (illegible).” A bare perusal of the above-mentioned statement of the -named executing official had not abovementioned proclamation. The order dated on the basis of abovementioned statement of the been declared the proclaimed person. mentioned procedure adopted by the Executing Constable, it is relevant to mention here that Section 82(2) of that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a person to be a proclaimed person:- “(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:- (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place have occurred inadvertently, in the process of placed on recorded by the learned . The 02.06.2022, is requested that three copies of proclamation of accused Simran Kaur Dhandi marked by SHO PS Division No.2 on 03/05/2022. That on 02/06/2022 after going to the given address of accused H.No. 10 Sunder Nagar, Dhangu Road, one d on the main door of house of the accused and on the same day second copy of proclamation was affixed on notice board of Hon’ble Court and third copy of mentioned statement of the had not The order dated mentioned statement of the . mentioned procedure adopted by the (2) of that following steps are necessary to be taken before (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-59031 17. it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of abovementioned provisions of Section It has also been held that in case the above process is not and spirit, the offender/proclaimed person is defective. 18. statement of was read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., order declaring the above and not sustainable in the eyes o 19. Anr.’ CRM CRM-M-50704 conspicuous place of the town or resides, as 59031-2025 (O&M) 5 of the town or village in which such ordinarily resides; (b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village; (c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspi part of the Court (ii) 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.” With regard to mandatory nature of ab it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of abovementioned provisions of Section 82(2) of It has also been held that in case the above process is not it, the impugned order declaring a person to be a proclaimed offender/proclaimed person is defective. In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention ement of the executing Constable nowhere depicts that the proclamation read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., order declaring the abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person is defective and not sustainable in the eyes of law. This Court in the cases of ‘Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & CRM-M-27944 of 2024 and ‘Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab 50704-2024, has observed that conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides, as prescribed under Section 82(2) of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides; it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village; a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house; 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.” rd to mandatory nature of abovementioned procedure, it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of (2) of CrPC is mandatory in nature. It has also been held that in case the above process is not followed in letter order declaring a person to be a proclaimed In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention here that the where depicts that the proclamation read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., and the impugned said person to be a proclaimed person is defective Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab observed that if a proclamation is not read at a village in which such person ordinarily prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a), the order declaring the person it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of cuous 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 mentioned procedure, it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of is mandatory in nature. in letter order declaring a person to be a proclaimed that the where depicts that the proclamation read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily impugned said person to be a proclaimed person is defective Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab’ if a proclamation is not read at a village in which such person ordinarily (i)(a), the order declaring the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-59031 abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been High Court in the cases of 18 and ‘Tajinder Singh v. State of Punjab 20. abovementioned fact i.e. non-reading of passed by unsustainable in the eyes 21. petition is by the learned trial Court 22. Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 59031-2025 (O&M) 6 abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been High Court in the cases of ‘Pal Singh Santa Singh v. State Tajinder Singh v. State of Punjab’ Taking into consideration the cumulative effect abovementioned factors, as there was a defect reading of proclamation in public place passed by the learned trial Court is hereby held to be sustainable in the eyes of law. As a sequel to abovementioned petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated by the learned trial Court is hereby quashed Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/ abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed offender is defective and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been taken by this Pal Singh Santa Singh v. State’ AIR 1955 Punjab ’ in CRM-M-21736-2024. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the was a defect in affixation of proclamation in public place, the order dated 29.10.2022 hereby held to be perverse, defective and As a sequel to abovementioned observations, the present the impugned order dated 29.10.2022 passed is hereby quashed. :Yes/No : Yes/No offender is defective n by this Punjab of the in affixation of proclamation, 29.10.2022 defective and present passed GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document