CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 201-2 Rohit Dadwal State of Punjab CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. seeking quashing of order dated learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 titled as State of Punjab vs. Usha Devi etc. in FIR No.194 dated 27.11.2021 (impugned FIR) registered under Sections 149 of Indian Penal Hoshiarpur as the other consequential arising therefrom. 2. (Annexure P order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender is not sustainable and is liable to be set blatantly violating provisions of Cr.P.C., issue non in India at that time. -32374-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rohit Dadwal V/s State of Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Singh, Sr. DAG Punjab. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section seeking quashing of order dated 27.09.2024 learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hoshiarpur titled as State of Punjab vs. Usha Devi etc. in FIR No.194 dated 27.11.2021 (impugned FIR) registered under Sections of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Hoshiarpur, whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender as well as the other consequential arising therefrom. While assailing the impugned order dated (Annexure P-4), the learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender is not sustainable and is liable to be set-aside. It has been further iterated blatantly violating provisions of Cr.P.C., issue non-bailable warrants despite the fact that petitioner was not residing in India at that time. It is further argued that no effective steps were taken in 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-32374-2025 Date of decision: 17.07.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Balram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Singh, Sr. DAG Punjab. ***** Present petition has been filed under Section 582 of BNS, 2023 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Hoshiarpur in case CHI/454/2023 titled as State of Punjab vs. Usha Devi etc. in FIR No.194 dated 27.11.2021 (impugned FIR) registered under Sections 323, 342, 447, 511, 506, 148 and Code, 1860 at Police Station Hariana, District whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender as well as the other consequential arising therefrom. While assailing the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 unsel for the petitioner has iterated that the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender is not sustainable and is aside. It has been further iterated that the Court below, blatantly violating provisions of Cr.P.C., 1973 straightway proceeded to bailable warrants despite the fact that petitioner was not residing It is further argued that no effective steps were taken in .2025 582 of BNS, 2023, passed by the CHI/454/2023 titled as State of Punjab vs. Usha Devi etc. in FIR No.194 dated 27.11.2021 323, 342, 447, 511, 506, 148 and Hariana, District whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender as well 27.09.2024 unsel for the petitioner has iterated that the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender is not sustainable and is that the Court below, htway proceeded to bailable warrants despite the fact that petitioner was not residing It is further argued that no effective steps were taken in AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.18 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- the case to serve the petitioner with warrants before issuance of proclamati order has been passed based on fabricated and false reports. It is respectfully submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner was neither personally served with any notice nor was any executed or communicated to him. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It has been argued that the inability of the petition asserts that the impugned order is in the eyes of law and is, therefore, liable to be set the Court below was made aware of was incumbent upon the concerned authority to effect service upon the petitioner at his overseas address, in accordance with the procedure mandated under the law. Furthermore, the Court below, while passing the impugned order, has failed to adopt the procedure envisaged under the law and thereby vitiating the entire process. declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender is unsustainable and deserves to be set-aside. 3. seeking quashing of the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender in the case. While refuting the case of the petitioner, detailed arguments concerning the merits of the case were made and it is alleged against the petitioner is serious and heinous. reply filed by way of affidavit of Narinder Singh, Deputy Superintendent of -32374-2025 the case to serve the petitioner with warrants before issuance of proclamation against him. It has been further iterated that the impugned order has been passed based on fabricated and false reports. It is respectfully submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner was neither personally served with any notice nor was any executed or communicated to him. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It has been argued that the inability of the petitioner to join the proceedings was not deliberate. asserts that the impugned order is ex facie in the eyes of law and is, therefore, liable to be set the Court below was made aware of the foreign residence of the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the concerned authority to effect service upon the petitioner at his overseas address, in accordance with the procedure mandated under the law. Furthermore, the Court below, while passing the impugned order, has failed to adopt the procedure envisaged under the law and thereby vitiating the entire process. declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender is unsustainable and deserves aside. Learned State counsel has opposed the claim of the petitioner seeking quashing of the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender in the case. While refuting the case of the petitioner, detailed arguments concerning the merits of the case were made and it is alleged against the petitioner is serious and heinous. reply filed by way of affidavit of Narinder Singh, Deputy Superintendent of 2 the case to serve the petitioner with warrants before issuance of on against him. It has been further iterated that the impugned order has been passed based on fabricated and false reports. It is respectfully submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner was neither personally served with any notice nor was any process ever properly executed or communicated to him. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It has been argued that the inability er to join the proceedings was not deliberate. Learned counsel ex facie illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law and is, therefore, liable to be set-aside. Moreover, once the foreign residence of the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the concerned authority to effect service upon the petitioner at his overseas address, in accordance with the procedure mandated under the law. Furthermore, the Court below, while passing the impugned order, has failed to adopt the procedure envisaged under the law and thereby vitiating the entire process. Hence, the impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender is unsustainable and deserves counsel has opposed the claim of the petitioner seeking quashing of the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender in the case. While refuting the case of the petitioner, detailed arguments concerning the merits of the case were made and it is argued that the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious and heinous. Referring to the short reply filed by way of affidavit of Narinder Singh, Deputy Superintendent of the case to serve the petitioner with warrants before issuance of on against him. It has been further iterated that the impugned order has been passed based on fabricated and false reports. It is respectfully submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner was neither process ever properly executed or communicated to him. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It has been argued that the inability Learned counsel illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable aside. Moreover, once the foreign residence of the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the concerned authority to effect service upon the petitioner at his overseas address, in accordance with the procedure mandated under the law. Furthermore, the Court below, while passing the impugned order, has failed to adopt the procedure envisaged under the law Hence, the impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender is unsustainable and deserves counsel has opposed the claim of the petitioner seeking quashing of the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender in the case. While refuting the case of the petitioner, detailed arguments argued that the offence Referring to the short reply filed by way of affidavit of Narinder Singh, Deputy Superintendent of AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.18 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Police, Sub Division Rural, District Hoshiarpur submitted that the after completion of the same, final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., 1973 was presented before the competent Court of jurisdiction. Furthermore, it has been submitted by the learn served thorough non compelled the Court below to declare him proclaimed person vide impugned order. Instead of surrendering before the competent Court, the petitioner has chose to file the instant petitioner which clearly reflects his conduct that he was fully aware of the proceedings and the coercive measures undertaken by the Court below to secure his presence. the learned Court below 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in letter and spirit and no discrepancy whatsoever is forthcoming from the records of the case. 4. carefully perused the 5. procedure, adopted by the trial Court. mandatory for the trial Court to record serving official Section 82 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the statement of ASI Gurnam Singh was recorded on 18.08.2024 before the Court below, however, a perusal of the same reveals that no specific date has been men alleged execution of the warrant. It is evident that the process claimed to have been undertaken was merely a paper formality, conducted at the police -32374-2025 Police, Sub Division Rural, District Hoshiarpur bmitted that the Police has conducted fair and proper investigation and after completion of the same, final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., 1973 was presented before the competent Court of jurisdiction. Furthermore, it has been submitted by the learned State counsel that the petitioner served thorough non-bailable warrants but he did not appear which compelled the Court below to declare him proclaimed person vide impugned order. Instead of surrendering before the competent Court, the petitioner has chose to file the instant petitioner which clearly reflects his conduct that he was fully aware of the proceedings and the coercive measures undertaken by the Court below to secure his presence. the learned Court below followed the procedure as laid 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in letter and spirit and no discrepancy whatsoever is forthcoming from the records of the case. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully perused the record of the case. The facts of the present case narrate a very sordid course of procedure, adopted by the trial Court. As per the settled legal position, it is mandatory for the trial Court to record official (Annexure P-3), while dealing with the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the statement of ASI Gurnam Singh was recorded on 18.08.2024 before the Court below, however, a perusal of the same reveals that no specific date has been men alleged execution of the warrant. It is evident that the process claimed to have been undertaken was merely a paper formality, conducted at the police 3 Police, Sub Division Rural, District Hoshiarpur learned State counsel Police has conducted fair and proper investigation and after completion of the same, final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., 1973 was presented before the competent Court of jurisdiction. Furthermore, it ed State counsel that the petitioner was bailable warrants but he did not appear which compelled the Court below to declare him proclaimed person vide impugned order. Instead of surrendering before the competent Court, the petitioner has chose to file the instant petitioner which clearly reflects his conduct that he was fully aware of the proceedings and the coercive measures undertaken by the Court below to secure his presence. Moreover, it has been stated that followed the procedure as laid-down under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in letter and spirit and no discrepancy whatsoever is forthcoming from the records of the case. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and The facts of the present case narrate a very sordid course of As per the settled legal position, it is mandatory for the trial Court to record the statement of the concerned 3), while dealing with the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the statement of ASI Gurnam Singh was recorded on 18.08.2024 before the Court below, however, a perusal of the same reveals that no specific date has been mentioned regarding the alleged execution of the warrant. It is evident that the process claimed to have been undertaken was merely a paper formality, conducted at the police has Police has conducted fair and proper investigation and after completion of the same, final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., 1973 was presented before the competent Court of jurisdiction. Furthermore, it was bailable warrants but he did not appear which compelled the Court below to declare him proclaimed person vide impugned order. Instead of surrendering before the competent Court, the petitioner has chose to file the instant petitioner which clearly reflects his conduct that he was fully aware of the proceedings and the coercive measures undertaken Moreover, it has been stated that down under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in letter and spirit and no discrepancy whatsoever is I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and The facts of the present case narrate a very sordid course of As per the settled legal position, it is the statement of the concerned 3), while dealing with the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the statement of ASI Gurnam Singh was recorded on 18.08.2024 before the Court below, however, a perusal of tioned regarding the alleged execution of the warrant. It is evident that the process claimed to have been undertaken was merely a paper formality, conducted at the police AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.18 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- station, without actual compliance at the residence of the petitioner. Despite the aforesaid glaring irregularities, the Court below proceeded to mechanically pass the impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person, in complete disregard to the mandatory procedural safeguards enshrined in the Cr.P.C. It appears that the th stereotyped and perfunctory approach rather than a judicious application of mind. Furthermore, as is evident from the earlier order dated 09.07.2024 (Annexure P petitioner was residing abroad. Despite such knowledge, no sincere or lawful attempt was made by the prosecution or the trial Court to effect service upon the petitioner at this overseas address, as is required under law. The Judicial Magistrate noted tha issued against the petitioner remained served as per the report of the serving official and presumed that reasonable steps were undertook to bring the publication to the notice of the proclaimed person i.e. the petit hence the publication process has been duly completed. the bare perusal of the impugned order dated also order dated the report forward present petitioner has been effected and consequent to the petitioner’s non appearance on the concerned dates recorded a satisfaction to the effect that the petitioner is absconding. Accordingly, proclaimed offender. 6. antithesis to the provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, -32374-2025 station, without actual compliance at the residence of the petitioner. Despite aforesaid glaring irregularities, the Court below proceeded to mechanically pass the impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person, in complete disregard to the mandatory procedural safeguards enshrined in the Cr.P.C. It appears that the th stereotyped and perfunctory approach rather than a judicious application of mind. Furthermore, as is evident from the earlier order dated 09.07.2024 (Annexure P-2), it was already in the knowledge of the Court below that the titioner was residing abroad. Despite such knowledge, no sincere or lawful attempt was made by the prosecution or the trial Court to effect service upon the petitioner at this overseas address, as is required under law. he Judicial Magistrate noted that the “proclamation warrants of arrest” issued against the petitioner remained served as per the report of the serving and presumed that reasonable steps were undertook to bring the publication to the notice of the proclaimed person i.e. the petit hence the publication process has been duly completed. the bare perusal of the impugned order dated also order dated 09.07.2024, the learned Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of the report forwarded by the serving official, observed that the service on the present petitioner has been effected and consequent to the petitioner’s non appearance on the concerned dates recorded a satisfaction to the effect that the petitioner is absconding. Accordingly, proclaimed offender. I find the course adopted by the Judicial Magistrate, as antithesis to the provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 4 station, without actual compliance at the residence of the petitioner. Despite aforesaid glaring irregularities, the Court below proceeded to mechanically pass the impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person, in complete disregard to the mandatory procedural safeguards enshrined in the Cr.P.C. It appears that the the impugned order reflects a stereotyped and perfunctory approach rather than a judicious application of mind. Furthermore, as is evident from the earlier order dated 09.07.2024 2), it was already in the knowledge of the Court below that the titioner was residing abroad. Despite such knowledge, no sincere or lawful attempt was made by the prosecution or the trial Court to effect service upon the petitioner at this overseas address, as is required under law. t the “proclamation warrants of arrest” issued against the petitioner remained served as per the report of the serving and presumed that reasonable steps were undertook to bring the publication to the notice of the proclaimed person i.e. the petitioner and hence the publication process has been duly completed. As is apparent from the bare perusal of the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-4) as , the learned Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of ed by the serving official, observed that the service on the present petitioner has been effected and consequent to the petitioner’s non appearance on the concerned dates recorded a satisfaction to the effect that the petitioner is absconding. Accordingly, the petitioner was declared I find the course adopted by the Judicial Magistrate, as antithesis to the provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, station, without actual compliance at the residence of the petitioner. Despite aforesaid glaring irregularities, the Court below proceeded to mechanically pass the impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person, in complete disregard to the mandatory procedural safeguards e impugned order reflects a stereotyped and perfunctory approach rather than a judicious application of mind. Furthermore, as is evident from the earlier order dated 09.07.2024 2), it was already in the knowledge of the Court below that the titioner was residing abroad. Despite such knowledge, no sincere or lawful attempt was made by the prosecution or the trial Court to effect service upon the petitioner at this overseas address, as is required under law. t the “proclamation warrants of arrest” issued against the petitioner remained served as per the report of the serving and presumed that reasonable steps were undertook to bring the ioner and As is apparent from ) as , the learned Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of ed by the serving official, observed that the service on the present petitioner has been effected and consequent to the petitioner’s non- appearance on the concerned dates recorded a satisfaction to the effect that the petitioner was declared I find the course adopted by the Judicial Magistrate, as antithesis to the provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.18 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 1973. The learned Judicial Magistrate has committed gross issuing the said proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, without complying with the mandatory requirements of law. Hence, the same is not sustainable in law and continuation of the same will amount to abuse of pro Code, 1973 reads as under: -32374-2025 1973. The learned Judicial Magistrate has committed gross issuing the said proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, without complying with the mandatory requirements of law. Hence, the same is not sustainable in law and continuation of the same will amount to abuse of process of law. Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 reads as under: “82. Proclamation for person absconding. to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued b himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing su proclamation. (2) The proclamation shall be published as follows: (i)(a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides; (b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house 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 conspicuous part of the court house; (ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the pro be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides. (3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in manner specified in clause (i) of sub evidence that the requirements of this Section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day. [(4) Where a proclamation published under sub a person accused of an offence punishable under Sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459, or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect. 5 1973. The learned Judicial Magistrate has committed gross illegality by issuing the said proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, without complying with the mandatory requirements of law. Hence, the same is not sustainable in law and continuation of the same will cess of law. Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure 82. Proclamation for person absconding. - (1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing su (2) The proclamation shall be published as follows: - (i)(a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person 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 (c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous 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 (3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in manner specified in clause (i) of sub-section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day. [(4) Where a proclamation published under sub-section (1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under Sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459, or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and such person fails to cified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect. illegality by issuing the said proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, without complying with the mandatory requirements of law. Hence, the same is not sustainable in law and continuation of the same will cess of law. Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure (1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against y it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such (i)(a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of (c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the court- clamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such (3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Section have been complied with, (1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under Sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459, or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and such person fails to cified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.18 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7. of the provision of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against accused in the case of ‘ 319’, held as under: -32374-2025 (5) The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a decla made by the Court under sub-section (4) as they apply to the proclamation published under sub-section (1).]” A coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with invocation of the provision of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against accused in the case of ‘Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) held as under: “9. The essential requirements of section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for issuance and publication of proclamation against an absconder and declaring him as proclaimed person/offender may be summarized as under:- (i) Prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court is sine qua non for issuance and publication of the proclamation and the Court has to first issue warrant of arrest against the person concerned. (See State of Delhi: 2008 Crl. J. 2561). (ii) There must be a report before the Court that the person against whom warrant was issued had absconded or had been concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest could not be executed against him. Court is not bound to take evidence in this regard before issuing a Proclamation under section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. (See Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561). (iii) The Court cannot issue the Proclamation as a matter of c because the Police is asking for it. The Court must be prima facie satisfied that the person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence. (See BishundayalMahton and others v. Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366 and Devender Singh Negi v. State of U.P. : 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783). (iv) The requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the proclamation requiring such person to appear on such dat place. Such date must not be less than 30 clear days from the date of issuance and publication of the proclamation. (See Gurappa Gugal and others v. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali v. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (CRIMINAL) 339). (v) Where the period between issuance and publication of the proclamation and the specified date of hearing is less than thirty days, the 6 sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration section (4) as they apply to the proclamation ” A coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with invocation of the provision of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 9. The essential requirements of section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for issuance and publication of proclamation against an absconder and laimed person/offender may be summarized as (i) Prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court is sine qua non for issuance and publication of the proclamation and the Court has to first issue warrant of arrest against the person concerned. (See Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi: 2008 Crl. J. 2561). (ii) There must be a report before the Court that the person against whom warrant was issued had absconded or had been concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest could not be executed against him. However, the Court is not bound to take evidence in this regard before issuing a Proclamation under section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. (See Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561). (iii) The Court cannot issue the Proclamation as a matter of course because the Police is asking for it. The Court must be prima facie satisfied that the person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable hton and others v. Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366 and Devender Singh Negi v. State of U.P. : 1994 Crl LJ (iv) The requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the proclamation requiring such person to appear on such date at the specified place. Such date must not be less than 30 clear days from the date of issuance and publication of the proclamation. (See Gurappa Gugal and others v. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali v. State of AL) 339). (v) Where the period between issuance and publication of the proclamation and the specified date of hearing is less than thirty days, the ration section (4) as they apply to the proclamation A coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with invocation of the provision of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against an Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 9. The essential requirements of section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for issuance and publication of proclamation against an absconder and laimed person/offender may be summarized as (i) Prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court is sine qua non for issuance and publication of the proclamation and the Court has to first Rohit Kumar v. (ii) There must be a report before the Court that the person against whom warrant was issued had absconded or had been concealing himself so that However, the Court is not bound to take evidence in this regard before issuing a Proclamation under section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. (See Rohit Kumar v. ourse because the Police is asking for it. The Court must be prima facie satisfied that the person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable hton and others v. Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366 and Devender Singh Negi v. State of U.P. : 1994 Crl LJ (iv) The requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the e at the specified place. Such date must not be less than 30 clear days from the date of issuance and publication of the proclamation. (See Gurappa Gugal and others v. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali v. State of (v) Where the period between issuance and publication of the proclamation and the specified date of hearing is less than thirty days, the AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.18 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -32374-2025 accused cannot be declared a proclaimed person/offender and the proclamation has to be issued and published State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) RCR (CRIMINAL) 166 and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (CRIMINAL) 550) (vi) The Proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. For publication the proclamation has to be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in wh ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house. The three sub section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 are conjunctive and not disjunctive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are proved. (See Pawan Kumar Gupta v. The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368). Where the Court so a copy of the proclamation has to be additionally published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which the accused ordinarily resides. Advisably, proclamation has to be issued with four copies so that one each of the three copies of the proclamation may be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides, to some conspicuous place of such town or village and to some conspicuous part of the Courthouse and report regarding publication may b the fourth copy of the proclamation. Additional copy will be required where the proclamation is also required to be published in the newspaper. (vii) Statement of the serving officer has to be recorded by the Court as to the date and mode of publication of the proclamation. (See Birad Dan v. State: 1958 CriLJ 965). (viii) The Court issuing the proclamation has to make a statement in writing in its order that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day in a manner specified in section statement in writing by the Court is declared to be conclusive evidence that the requirements of Section 82 have been complied with and that the proclamation was published on such day. (See Birad Dan v. State: 1958 CriLJ 965). (xi) The conditions specified in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for the publication of a Proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. Any non-compliance therewith cannot be cured as an 'irregularity' and renders the Proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity. (See 7 accused cannot be declared a proclaimed person/offender and the proclamation has to be issued and published again. (See Dilbagh Singh v. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) RCR (CRIMINAL) 166 and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (CRIMINAL) 550) (vi) The Proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in Cr.P.C., 1973. For publication the proclamation has to be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some house. The three sub-clauses (a)- (c) in .C., 1973 are conjunctive and not disjunctive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are proved. (See Pawan Kumar Gupta v. The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368). Where the Court so orders a copy of the proclamation has to be additionally published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which the accused ordinarily resides. Advisably, proclamation has to be issued with four copies so that one each proclamation may be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides, to some conspicuous place of such town or village and to some conspicuous part of the Courthouse and report regarding publication may be made on the fourth copy of the proclamation. Additional copy will be required where the proclamation is also required to be published in the newspaper. (vii) Statement of the serving officer has to be recorded by the Court as to lication of the proclamation. (See Birad Dan v. (viii) The Court issuing the proclamation has to make a statement in writing in its order that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day in a manner specified in section 82(2)(i) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. Such statement in writing by the Court is declared to be conclusive evidence that the requirements of Section 82 have been complied with and that the proclamation was published on such day. (See Birad Dan v. State: 1958 (xi) The conditions specified in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for the publication of a Proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. Any compliance therewith cannot be cured as an 'irregularity' and renders ings subsequent thereto a nullity. (See accused cannot be declared a proclaimed person/offender and the again. (See Dilbagh Singh v. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) RCR (CRIMINAL) 166 and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (CRIMINAL) 550) (vi) The Proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in Cr.P.C., 1973. For publication the proclamation has to be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to ich the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some (c) in .C., 1973 are conjunctive and not disjunctive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are proved. (See Pawan Kumar orders a copy of the proclamation has to be additionally published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which the accused ordinarily resides. Advisably, proclamation has to be issued with four copies so that one each proclamation may be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides, to some conspicuous place of such town or village and to some conspicuous e made on the fourth copy of the proclamation. Additional copy will be required where the proclamation is also required to be published in the newspaper. (vii) Statement of the serving officer has to be recorded by the Court as to lication of the proclamation. (See Birad Dan v. (viii) The Court issuing the proclamation has to make a statement in writing in its order that the proclamation was duly published on a specified 82(2)(i) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. Such statement in writing by the Court is declared to be conclusive evidence that the requirements of Section 82 have been complied with and that the proclamation was published on such day. (See Birad Dan v. State: 1958 (xi) The conditions specified in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for the publication of a Proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. Any compliance therewith cannot be cured as an 'irregularity' and renders ings subsequent thereto a nullity. (See AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.18 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 8. Code of Criminal Procedure a applicability of the provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the issuance of proclamation in the present case is clearly not sustainable. which the petitioner 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr aside as it is vitiated by procedural irregularities and non mandatory statutory requir leading to the issuance of the proclamation reveals that the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMIC) failed to adhere to the strict procedural safeguards enshrined under Section 82 of the Cr declaration 09.07.2024 failed to appear before the the petitioner/accused was deliberately evading the service and hence issued coercive steps. more than 30 days had been elapsed since the proclamation of accused but he did no Moreover the culminating in the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender. the outset, it is pertinent to highlight tha Section 82(1) CrPC is mandatory and cannot be circumvented. For a person -32374-2025 Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu v. State of U.P. and another: 1994 CriLJ 1783 and Pal Singh v. The State: 1955 CriLJ 318) In view of the provisions of above quoted Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the authoritative judgment interpreting the applicability of the provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the issuance of proclamation in the present case is clearly not sustainable. The impugned order dated the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr aside as it is vitiated by procedural irregularities and non mandatory statutory requirements. A perusal of the sequence of events leading to the issuance of the proclamation reveals that the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMIC) failed to adhere to the strict procedural safeguards enshrined under Section 82 of the Cr declaration nonest in law. The genesis of the matter lies in the order dated 09.07.2024, wherein the Ld. JMIC noted that the petitioner/accused had failed to appear before the Court and, as a consequence, the petitioner/accused was deliberately evading the service and hence issued coercive steps. Finally, on 27.09.2024, the Ld. JMIC proceeded to note that more than 30 days had been elapsed since the proclamation of accused but he did not appeared and thu,s intentionally avoiding the proceedings oreover the proclamation for the service of the accused was culminating in the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender. the outset, it is pertinent to highlight that the procedure contemplated under Section 82(1) CrPC is mandatory and cannot be circumvented. For a person 8 Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu v. State of U.P. and another: 1994 CriLJ 1783 and Pal Singh v. The State: 1955 CriLJ 318).” In view of the provisions of above quoted Section 82 of the nd the authoritative judgment interpreting the applicability of the provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the issuance of proclamation in the present case is clearly not dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-4) vide a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), deserves to be set aside as it is vitiated by procedural irregularities and non-compliance with ements. A perusal of the sequence of events leading to the issuance of the proclamation reveals that the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMIC) failed to adhere to the strict procedural safeguards enshrined under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., thereby rendering the The genesis of the matter lies in the order dated , wherein the Ld. JMIC noted that the petitioner/accused had ourt and, as a consequence, the Court held that the petitioner/accused was deliberately evading the service and hence issued , the Ld. JMIC proceeded to note that more than 30 days had been elapsed since the proclamation of accused but intentionally avoiding the proceedings for the service of the accused was duly served, culminating in the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender. t the procedure contemplated under Section 82(1) CrPC is mandatory and cannot be circumvented. For a person Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu v. State of U.P. and another: 1994 CriLJ In view of the provisions of above quoted Section 82 of the nd the authoritative judgment interpreting the applicability of the provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the issuance of proclamation in the present case is clearly not vide a proclaimed offender under Section ), deserves to be set compliance with ements. A perusal of the sequence of events leading to the issuance of the proclamation reveals that the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMIC) failed to adhere to the strict procedural ering the The genesis of the matter lies in the order dated , wherein the Ld. JMIC noted that the petitioner/accused had the Court held that the petitioner/accused was deliberately evading the service and hence issued , the Ld. JMIC proceeded to note that more than 30 days had been elapsed since the proclamation of accused but intentionally avoiding the proceedings. duly served, At t the procedure contemplated under Section 82(1) CrPC is mandatory and cannot be circumvented. For a person AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.18 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- to be declared a proclaimed offender, the that the accused is absconding or is deliberately concealing himself to the execution of arrest warrants. This satisfaction must be based on cogent material placed before the court and reflected in its orders. However, the orders passed by the Ld. JMIC in the present case are conspicuously silent on this critical aspect that the petitioner was absconding or deliberately evading arrest. The absence of such satisfaction strikes at the root of the proclamation proceedings and renders the subsequent order declaring the pe proclaimed offender legally unsustainable. 8.1. must strictly comply with the prescribed statutory requirements. In case (supra be issued mechanically or as a matter of course. 9 of Sonu’s case (supra and record its satisfaction regarding the accused’s intent to evade the process of law. The non renders the impugned proclamation defective and without jurisdiction. 8.2. public notice, which must be published in a prescribed manner, giving the accused a stipulated time to appear before the safeguard was neither followed nor recorded in the present case. the above, the non 82 Cr.P.C Sonu’s case renders the declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed offender -32374-2025 to be declared a proclaimed offender, the that the accused is absconding or is deliberately concealing himself to the execution of arrest warrants. This satisfaction must be based on cogent material placed before the court and reflected in its orders. However, the orders passed by the Ld. JMIC in the present case are conspicuously silent on this critical aspect. At no point did the Ld. JMIC record its satisfaction that the petitioner was absconding or deliberately evading arrest. The absence of such satisfaction strikes at the root of the proclamation proceedings and renders the subsequent order declaring the pe proclaimed offender legally unsustainable. Furthermore, the proceedings under Section 82 Cr must strictly comply with the prescribed statutory requirements. In case (supra) the Court laid down that a declaration under Sec be issued mechanically or as a matter of course. Sonu’s case (supra) mandates that the and record its satisfaction regarding the accused’s intent to evade the process w. The non-adherence to this cardinal principle in the instant case renders the impugned proclamation defective and without jurisdiction. Additionally, the issuance of a proclamation in the form of a public notice, which must be published in a prescribed manner, giving the accused a stipulated time to appear before the safeguard was neither followed nor recorded in the present case. the above, the non-compliance with mandatory requirements under Section C., 1973 and the failure to adhere to the guidelines laid down in Sonu’s case renders the declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed offender 9 to be declared a proclaimed offender, the Court must record its satisfaction that the accused is absconding or is deliberately concealing himself to evade the execution of arrest warrants. This satisfaction must be based on cogent material placed before the court and reflected in its orders. However, the orders passed by the Ld. JMIC in the present case are conspicuously silent . At no point did the Ld. JMIC record its satisfaction that the petitioner was absconding or deliberately evading arrest. The absence of such satisfaction strikes at the root of the proclamation proceedings and renders the subsequent order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender legally unsustainable. proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C., 1973 must strictly comply with the prescribed statutory requirements. In Sonu’s the Court laid down that a declaration under Section 82 cannot be issued mechanically or as a matter of course. As per condition (ii) of para mandates that the Court must specifically ascertain and record its satisfaction regarding the accused’s intent to evade the process adherence to this cardinal principle in the instant case renders the impugned proclamation defective and without jurisdiction. issuance of a proclamation in the form of a public notice, which must be published in a prescribed manner, giving the accused a stipulated time to appear before the Court. This procedural safeguard was neither followed nor recorded in the present case. In view of compliance with mandatory requirements under Section and the failure to adhere to the guidelines laid down in Sonu’s case renders the declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed offender ourt must record its satisfaction evade the execution of arrest warrants. This satisfaction must be based on cogent material placed before the court and reflected in its orders. However, the orders passed by the Ld. JMIC in the present case are conspicuously silent . At no point did the Ld. JMIC record its satisfaction that the petitioner was absconding or deliberately evading arrest. The absence of such satisfaction strikes at the root of the proclamation titioner a ., 1973 Sonu’s tion 82 cannot of para ourt must specifically ascertain and record its satisfaction regarding the accused’s intent to evade the process adherence to this cardinal principle in the instant case issuance of a proclamation in the form of a public notice, which must be published in a prescribed manner, giving the ourt. This procedural view of compliance with mandatory requirements under Section and the failure to adhere to the guidelines laid down in Sonu’s case renders the declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed offender AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.18 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- legally infirm. Conseq set aside in the interests of justice 9. law that the Court which issues the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., 1973 must reco the proclamation is being made, is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest. The predominant requirement for invocation of provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is cl present case. Perusal of order dated 27.09.2024 satisfaction has been recorded while issuing the proclamation that the accused-petitioner has arrest against him cannot be executed. There was no material present before the Judicial Magistrate to record such a satisfaction. Rather, the case put forth by the petitioner before this Court, that address given by the police in the case, clearly shows that he was never served with any warrants before issuance of proclamation against him. 10. as also order date the petitioner as proclaimed offender has relied upon statement of serving official to hold that the proclamation issued against the petitioner has been effected. The that in this report it is mentioned that the police official no specific date has been mentioned regarding the alleged execution of the warrant or the purported raid. -32374-2025 legally infirm. Consequently, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside in the interests of justice It is pertinent to mention that by now it is a settled principle of law that the Court which issues the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., 1973 must record its satisfaction that the accused in respect of whom the proclamation is being made, is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest. The predominant requirement for invocation of provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is cl present case. Perusal of order dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Judicial Magistrate shows that no satisfaction has been recorded while issuing the proclamation that the petitioner has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrants of arrest against him cannot be executed. There was no material present before the Judicial Magistrate to record such a satisfaction. Rather, the case put forth by the petitioner before this Court, that address given by the police in the case, clearly shows that he was never served with any warrants before issuance of proclamation against him. Strangely the impugned order dated as also order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender has relied upon statement of serving official to hold that the proclamation issued against the petitioner has been effected. The report annexed as Annexure P that in this report it is mentioned that the police official no specific date has been mentioned regarding the alleged execution of the warrant or the purported raid. He had pasted one copy of proclamatio 10 uently, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and It is pertinent to mention that by now it is a settled principle of law that the Court which issues the proclamation under Section 82 of rd its satisfaction that the accused in respect of whom the proclamation is being made, is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest. The predominant requirement for invocation of provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is clearly lacking in the present case. Perusal of order dated 09.07.2024 as also order dated ) passed by the Judicial Magistrate shows that no satisfaction has been recorded while issuing the proclamation that the absconded or is concealing himself so that warrants of arrest against him cannot be executed. There was no material present before the Judicial Magistrate to record such a satisfaction. Rather, the case put forth by the petitioner before this Court, that he has never resided at the address given by the police in the case, clearly shows that he was never served with any warrants before issuance of proclamation against him. Strangely the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P passed by the Judicial Magistrate, declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender has relied upon statement of serving official to hold that the proclamation issued against the petitioner has been report annexed as Annexure P-3 of the service official shows that in this report it is mentioned that the police official raided the house but no specific date has been mentioned regarding the alleged execution of the He had pasted one copy of proclamation on uently, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and It is pertinent to mention that by now it is a settled principle of law that the Court which issues the proclamation under Section 82 of rd its satisfaction that the accused in respect of whom the proclamation is being made, is absconding or concealing himself to evade his arrest. The predominant requirement for invocation of provisions early lacking in the as also order dated ) passed by the Judicial Magistrate shows that no satisfaction has been recorded while issuing the proclamation that the absconded or is concealing himself so that warrants of arrest against him cannot be executed. There was no material present before the Judicial Magistrate to record such a satisfaction. Rather, the case put he has never resided at the address given by the police in the case, clearly shows that he was never (Annexure P-4) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender has relied upon statement of serving official to hold that the proclamation issued against the petitioner has been shows raided the house but no specific date has been mentioned regarding the alleged execution of the n on AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.18 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- the main gate of place. But the Judicial Magistrate while passing the impugned order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender in the case has been totally oblivious of said service repo enunciated in para 9 (vi) of the judgment in the case of proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. For publication the proclamation has to be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily resides; the of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous par 11. having serious ramifications presence in the criminal trial proceedings ought not be and cannot be invoked in casual and satisfaction, that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrant of his arrest cannot be executed, as embodied in Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to be scrupulously co relevant material available on record of the case in that regard. Non adherence to said requirement while declaring the accused as proclaimed offender vitiates the proclamation proceedings initiated against the accused. 12. criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner particularly when the petitioner has already joined the investigation -32374-2025 main gate of the respective house and one copy of notice on the public . But the Judicial Magistrate while passing the impugned order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender in the case has been totally oblivious of said service report of proclamation by the police. As was enunciated in para 9 (vi) of the judgment in the case of proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. For publication the proclamation has to be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous par The provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure having serious ramifications qua the right of the accused concerning his presence in the criminal trial proceedings ought not be and cannot be invoked in casual and cavalier manner. The requirement of recording of satisfaction, that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrant of his arrest cannot be executed, as embodied in Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to be scrupulously co relevant material available on record of the case in that regard. Non adherence to said requirement while declaring the accused as proclaimed offender vitiates the proclamation proceedings initiated against the accused. Hence, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner particularly when the petitioner has already joined the investigation 11 and one copy of notice on the public . But the Judicial Magistrate while passing the impugned order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender in the case has been totally rt of proclamation by the police. As was enunciated in para 9 (vi) of the judgment in the case of Sonu (supra), proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. For publication the proclamation has to be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused n the same has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house. The provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the right of the accused concerning his presence in the criminal trial proceedings ought not be and cannot be cavalier manner. The requirement of recording of satisfaction, that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrant of his arrest cannot be executed, as embodied in Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to be scrupulously complied with based on relevant material available on record of the case in that regard. Non adherence to said requirement while declaring the accused as proclaimed offender vitiates the proclamation proceedings initiated against the accused. useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner particularly when the petitioner has already joined the investigation and has cooperate and hence and one copy of notice on the public . But the Judicial Magistrate while passing the impugned order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender in the case has been totally rt of proclamation by the police. As was ,the proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. For publication the proclamation has to be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused n the same has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the house. The provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the right of the accused concerning his presence in the criminal trial proceedings ought not be and cannot be cavalier manner. The requirement of recording of satisfaction, that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself so that warrant of his arrest cannot be executed, as embodied in Section 82 of the mplied with based on relevant material available on record of the case in that regard. Non- adherence to said requirement while declaring the accused as proclaimed offender vitiates the proclamation proceedings initiated against the accused. useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner particularly when the has cooperate and hence it AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.18 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- would be an appropriate case for exercise of powers unde Cr.P.C. and to bring to an end the criminal proceedings initiated in the light of the FIR 13. circumstances of the present case, the present petit order dated Magistrate, 1 of Punjab vs. Usha Devi etc. in FIR No.194 dated 27.11.2021 FIR) registere Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender as well as the other consequential arising therefrom is quashed. 14. accordingly. July 17, 202 Ajay -32374-2025 would be an appropriate case for exercise of powers unde Cr.P.C. and to bring to an end the criminal proceedings initiated in the light of the FIR ibid against the petitioner. In view of the above findings, in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the present case, the present petit order dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-4), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hoshiarpur in case in case CHI/454/2023 titled as State of Punjab vs. Usha Devi etc. in FIR No.194 dated 27.11.2021 FIR) registered under Sections 323, 342, 447, 511, 506, 148 and 149 Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender as well as the other consequential arising therefrom is quashed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 12 would be an appropriate case for exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and to bring to an end the criminal proceedings initiated in the light In view of the above findings, in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the present case, the present petition is allowed and the ), passed by the learned Judicial in case CHI/454/2023 titled as State of Punjab vs. Usha Devi etc. in FIR No.194 dated 27.11.2021 (impugned 323, 342, 447, 511, 506, 148 and 149 Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender as well as the other consequential arising therefrom is quashed. ending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No r Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and to bring to an end the criminal proceedings initiated in the light In view of the above findings, in the entirety of facts and ion is allowed and the ), passed by the learned Judicial in case CHI/454/2023 titled as State (impugned 323, 342, 447, 511, 506, 148 and 149 of Hariana, District Hoshiarpur, whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender as well as the other ending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.18 12:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document