CRM-M-17982 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 140 MOHD. IRSHAD STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SURYA P 28.08.2025 and statement dated 15.09.2025 mentioned in the application, the same is hereby allowed and the documents annexed with the application are taken on record. 2. referred to as ‘impugned order’ Divisional petition. 17982-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH MOHD. IRSHAD VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Ms. Rosi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (oral) CRM-25801-2026 This is an application seeking for placing 28.08.2025 and statement dated 15.09.2025 mentioned in the application, the same is hereby allowed and the documents annexed with the application are taken on record. CRM-M-17982-2026 The order dated 23.10.2025 referred to as ‘impugned order’, passed by the Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Punhana, is under challenge in the present . The present petition has been filed IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-17982-2026 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 03.07.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH the petitioner. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana. This is an application seeking for placing order dated 28.08.2025 and statement dated 15.09.2025 on record. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is hereby allowed and the documents annexed with the application are taken on record. (Annexure P-4), hereinafter being passed by the Court of learned Sub , is under challenge in the present The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the (O&M) .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT dated on record. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is hereby allowed and the documents , hereinafter being Sub- , is under challenge in the present of the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.04 12:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17982 Bharatiya only. 3. during the Sections 148, 149, 323, 302, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Arms Act 4. petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323, 302, 506 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act the abovementioned case non-bailable warrants were could not be executed 5. proclamation against the petitioner for serving official to get his statement recorded on or before 15.09.2025 15.09.2025, statement of executing official was recorded and thereafter, case was adjourned to the petitioner 30 days had elapsed. Court declared 6. that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed the BNSS 17982-2026 (O&M) 2 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, By virtue of abovementioned order, t during the course of trial, for the commission of o 148, 149, 323, 302, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Act, has declared the petitioner to be In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323, 302, 506 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act the abovementioned case due to non-appearance bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner. H could not be executed. Subsequently, on 28.08.2025, proclamation against the petitioner for serving official to get his statement recorded on or before 15.09.2025 .2025, statement of executing official was recorded and thereafter, case was adjourned to 23.10.2025. On 23.10.2025, tioner was received back, duly effected had elapsed. Thus, by virtue of impugned order declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed The present petition has been filed by the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed, because the necessary procedure BNSS (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC) , 2023, hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’ By virtue of abovementioned order, the learned trial Court for the commission of offence punishable under 148, 149, 323, 302, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 323, 302, 506 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, and appearance on various occasions, the issued against the petitioner. However, the same on 28.08.2025, the learned trial Court issued proclamation against the petitioner for 23.10.2025 and also directed the serving official to get his statement recorded on or before 15.09.2025. .2025, statement of executing official was recorded and thereafter, case .2025, proclamation issued against effected, and the statutory period of by virtue of impugned order, the learned trial proclaimed person. 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 the necessary procedure prescribed under Section 84 of (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC) was not complied with by ereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’ he learned trial Court, fence punishable under 25 of shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under and in , the owever, the same issued and also directed the On .2025, statement of executing official was recorded and thereafter, case proclamation issued against the statutory period of the learned trial by alleging that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to prescribed under Section 84 of the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.04 12:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17982 learned tr With regard the proclamation was not publicly read, as 7. 8. behalf of respondent dispensed with. 9. 10. warrants issued against the petitioner was not living in that village petitioner petitioner error, when without following a proclaimed person. 11. essential steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading the conten case, the executing place. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, adopted by the learned trial Court, proclaimed 12. abovementioned arguments. He has contended 17982-2026 (O&M) 3 rial Court, while declaring the petitioner regard to above, it has been specifically alleged by the proclamation was not publicly read, as Notice of motion. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice dispensed with. Heard. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that warrants issued against the petitioner ha not living in that village. As per lea petitioner was never served with any summons petitioner has further contended that the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following the due process it declared the petitioner to be proclaimed person. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading nts of the proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case, the executing official did not publicly read the place. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, adopted by the learned trial Court, in proclaimed person, the impugned order is liable to be set The learned State Counsel has abovementioned arguments. He has contended , while declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed person , it has been specifically alleged by the petitioner that the proclamation was not publicly read, as required under the law. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana appears on Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that non-bailable ad been returned unexecuted as he arned counsel for the petitioner, was never served with any summons. The learned counsel for the the learned trial Court has committed an due process it declared the petitioner to be According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading proclamation at a public place, and that in the present ot publicly read the proclamation at a public place. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, due to defective procedure declaring the petitioner to be , the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. He has contended that in the present case, the proclaimed person. the petitioner that appears on is hereby bailable as he the learned counsel for the the learned trial Court has committed an due process it declared the petitioner to be According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading proclamation at a public place, and that in the present proclamation at a public defective procedure declaring the petitioner to be a controverted the present case, the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.04 12:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17982 petitioner is a person, who right from the very pendency of criminal proceedings against before the Court and remained absent Counsel, in view of above technical defect, if any, which might process of declaring the petitioner 13. 14. record the trial Court, statement of as under:- 15. executing not publicly read the contents of 17982-2026 (O&M) 4 petitioner is a person, who right from the very pendency of criminal proceedings against before the Court and remained absent for Counsel, in view of above, the petitioner technical defect, if any, which might have occurred inadvertently, in the f 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 Constable, namely - “Stated that for the execution of the advertisement, Constable Vikas reached the house of accused Irshad s/o Hasan r/o Nai, Police Station, Bichhore, District Nuh on dated 06.09.2026. Where the above mentioned accused etc. were inquired about, where the accused’s neighbours Irfan and Addan were found who told that Irshad has stayed away from home to avoid arrest and has not come home for a long time. One copy of the notice has been pasted at the house of the accused, one copy at the public square, one copy at the gate copy has been pasted on the inspection board of the Honorable Court. The original copy is presented to the Honorable Court.” A bare perusal of the above executing Constable shows that the above not publicly read the contents of abovementioned petitioner is a person, who right from the very beginning was aware of the pendency of criminal proceedings against him, but opted not to appear for a long time. As per learned State cannot derive any benefit from have occurred inadvertently, in the to be a proclaimed person. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has placed on executing Constable, recorded by the learned the petitioner to be proclaimed person. The , namely Ct. Vikas dated 15.09.2025, reads for the execution of the advertisement, Constable Vikas reached the house of accused Irshad s/o Hasan r/o Nai, Police Station, Bichhore, District Nuh on dated 06.09.2026. Where the above mentioned accused etc. were inquired about, hbours Irfan and Addan were found who told that Irshad has stayed away from home to avoid arrest and has not come home for a long time. One copy of the notice has been pasted at the house of the accused, one copy at the public square, one copy at the gate of the police station and one copy has been pasted on the inspection board of the Honorable Court. The original copy is presented to the Honorable Court.” A bare perusal of the above-mentioned statement of the shows that the above-named executing Constable had abovementioned proclamation. The order beginning was aware of the opted not to appear . As per learned State from the have occurred inadvertently, in the placed on recorded by the learned . The reads for the execution of the advertisement, Constable Vikas reached the house of accused Irshad s/o Hasan r/o Nai, Police Station, Bichhore, District Nuh on dated 06.09.2026. Where the above mentioned accused etc. were inquired about, hbours Irfan and Addan were found who told that Irshad has stayed away from home to avoid arrest and has not come home for a long time. One copy of the notice has been pasted at the house of the accused, one copy at the of the police station and one copy has been pasted on the inspection board of the Honorable Court. The original copy is presented to the Honorable Court.” mentioned statement of the had The order GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.04 12:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17982 dated 23.10 the executing person. 16. executing lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a person to be a 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, offender/proclaimed person is defective. 18. statement of 17982-2026 (O&M) 5 23.10.2025 shows that on the basis of above executing Constable, the petitioner With regard to the above-mentioned procedure adopted by the executing official, 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 of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides; (b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of 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 conspicuous part of the Court (ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a 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 above 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 and spirit, 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 official nowhere depicts that the proclamation on the basis of abovementioned statement of has been declared the proclaimed mentioned procedure adopted by the , it is relevant to mention here that Section 82(2) of CrPC lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a “(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; it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of 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 mentioned statement of proclaimed mentioned procedure adopted by the CrPC lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such 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 a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.04 12:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17982 was read o resides, as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., order declaring the above and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 19. Anr.’ CRM CRM-M-50704 conspicuous place of the town or resides, as 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 reading of by the Court of hereby held to be 21. petition is by the Court of hereby quashed 17982-2026 (O&M) 6 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 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) 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, Court of learned Sub-Divisional hereby held to be perverse, defective and As a sequel to abovementioned observations petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial hereby quashed. ver 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 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 was a defect in proclamation, i.e. non , the order dated 23.10.2025 passed Divisional Judicial Magistrate Punhana defective and unsustainable in the eyes of law. a sequel to abovementioned observations, the present the impugned order dated 23.10.2025 passed Divisional Judicial Magistrate Punhana ver 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 offender is defective taken by this Punjab Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of i.e. non- passed Punhana is of law. present passed Punhana is GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.04 12:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-17982 22. Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 17982-2026 (O&M) 7 Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/ :Yes/No : Yes/No GAURAV THAKUR 2026.07.04 12:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document