-1- CRM-M-68598-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 204 CRM-M-68598-2025 (O & M) Date of decision: 09.07.2026 Ramandeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab. AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS for quashing of impugned orders dated 28.04.2023 and 27.02.2024, Annexures P4 and P5, passed by the Ld. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala Sahib, District Amritsar, whereby the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender and proceedings have been kept sine die till petitioner’s surrender or arrest in FIR No.135, Dated 30.08.2020, Annexure P1. 2. Learned counsel submits that the FIR in question had been registered against the petitioner in violation of the guidelines issued during Covid-19 pandemic which was on the basis of secret information. Challan was filed on 07.08.2021, however, not having the knowledge of his continuance to appear, he left for abroad on 21.01.2022 for earning a living. Reference in this regard is made to entries in his passport, Annexure P6. The proclamation proceedings were initiated behind his back while zimini orders dated 01.12.2022 reveals that he was abroad, however, no efforts were made to comply with the procedure mandated under Sections ASHOK KUMAR 2026.07.09 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- CRM-M-68598-2025 41, 105 and 82 Cr.P.C. In the interregnum, all the co-accused who were put to trial stand acquitted vide judgment dated 27.02.2024, Annexure P5. A further reference is made to a Notification issued by the Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs, IS Division-II:Legal Cell New Delhi, dated the 11th Feb, 2009, laying down comprehensive guidelines in this regard of reciprocal arrangements to be made by Central Government with the Foreign Governments with regard to the service of summons/warrants/judicial processes. The Ministry of Home Affairs has entered into Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty/Agreements with 22 countries which provide for serving of documents. Therefore, the proclamation proceedings being in violation thereof are liable to be set aside. He, however, is ready and willing to join the proceedings and prays that one last opportunity may be granted, even if the same is subject to costs, to his to surrender in a fortnight and seek his legal remedy before the trial Court. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the order passed against the petitioner is legal and valid on account of the fact that he had absented from the proceedings before the trial Court without any just cause. 4. No order prejudicial to the rights of the private respondent is being proposed to be passed by this Court, thus, there is no requirement of impleading it as party respondent. 5. Heard. 6. In Gurbir Singh Mundi vs. State of Punjab and another, CRM-M-49283-2021, decided on 16.12.2021, it was held that provisions of Section 82(2) Cr.PC. are to be mandatorily complied with cumulatively and not alternatively. The Court had quashed the order declaring the petitioner therein as proclaimed person on the ground that declaration was ASHOK KUMAR 2026.07.09 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -3- CRM-M-68598-2025 not read publicly in some conspicuous place of town or village, in which the accused ordinarily resides. 7. In Sonu vs. State of Haryana, 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 319, it was held that any non-compliance in the procedure prescribed in declaring a proclaimed person, cannot be treated as an irregularity but the same renders such proceedings a nullity. 8. This Court in Satvir Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, CRM-M-27621-2025, 20.05.2025, while relying on Rohit Kumar vs. State of Delhi 2008 Crl. J. 2561, has held that Court must be prima facie satisfied that the person absconded or is concealed himself so that warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite due diligence. 9. In Jasbir Kaur vs. State of Punjab and another, CRM-M- 25115-2022, decided on 2.6.2022, since the petitioner therein was a Non Indian Resident residing in Canada and proclamation proceedings had been initiated while she was not in India, as such, the order of proclamation was set aside. 10. Similarly, in Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, CRM-M-32011-2018, petition was allowed on 6.2.2020, noticing the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner relying on the photocopy of the passport (Annexure A-1) that he was in Italy at the time of registration of FIR 29.10.2009, as well as, on the day, when he was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 28.4.2014 and even on the date of passing of the above order. 11. The very purpose of issuance of summons, warrants etc. is to compel and secure the presence of the accused to face trial and establish the rule of law so as to ensure finalization of the proceedings. ASHOK KUMAR 2026.07.09 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -4- CRM-M-68598-2025 12. Considering the fact that the absence of the petitioner was not wilful or deliberate and his readiness and willingness to surrender and join the proceedings, in case one opportunity is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice shall be caused to any of the parties, rather his joining the proceedings would help in expediting the trial. This Court in light of the judgments referred to above being applicable to the instant case, finds that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the present petition is allowed. 13. In view of the afore-mentioned judgments and the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 28.04.2023 and 27.02.2024, Annexures P-4 and P-5, are set aside. 14. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of 3 weeks to seek his remedy for grant of bail in accordance with law, to be decided on the same day. It shall be subject to deposit Rs.25,000/- as costs with Chandigarh Spinal Rehab, Plot No.1, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh. Till then, no coercive steps be taken. 15. The petition is disposed of. 16. Before parting with this order, it is made abundantly clear that in case the petitioner does not adhere to the aforesaid, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed without any reference to this Court. 09.07.2026 (AMAN CHAUDHARY) ashok JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No ASHOK KUMAR 2026.07.09 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document