CRM-M-36544 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 123 Davinder Singh @ Gora State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. CRM-28076 2. CRM-M quashing of order dated learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana Devinder Singh and registered under Sections Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana been declared a proclaimed 3. grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in was regularly appearing before the learned trial himself on 36544-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Davinder Singh @ Gora Versus Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Shadab Ahmad, Advocate for the petitioner. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 28076-2025 Allowed as prayed for. Documents are taken on record. M-36544-2025 (O&M) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner quashing of order dated 17.10.2014 (Annexure P Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana Devinder Singh and others, arising out of FIR No. registered under Sections 397, 395, 452, 332, 333, 186, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana been declared a proclaimed offender. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned case was regularly appearing before the learned trial himself on 22.07.2014 due to noting down a wrong date -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36544-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.08.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Shadab Ahmad, Advocate Documents are taken on record. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking (Annexure P-3), passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in case titled as State vs. , arising out of FIR No. 171 dated 27.08.2011 397, 395, 452, 332, 333, 186, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana, whereby the petitioner had sent petition has been filed by the petitioner on the grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been case. The petitioner was on bail and was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court. However, he absented noting down a wrong date, consequent to which, - 2025 (O&M) 12.08.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent seeking Court of State vs. 27.08.2011, 397, 395, 452, 332, 333, 186, 148 and 149 of IPC at whereby the petitioner had sent petition has been filed by the petitioner on the grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been was on bail and Court. However, he absented , consequent to which, MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.12 19:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36544 his bail was cancelled and non 06.08.2014 and since he proclaimed offender by the learned trial Court. It is further argued that never served with any notice/warrants issued by the ordinary pl proclaimed Section 82 urged that the 4. 5. and is ready to argue the matter State. She has argued that petitioner has rightly been declared a proclaimed away from the process of Court. It is, thus, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. and have also gone through the material placed on record. 7. learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed by the learned 82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed absconder, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 17.10.2014 all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 36544-2025 (O&M) his bail was cancelled and non-bailable warrants were issued against him for 06.08.2014. Later on, in search of a job and to earn livelihood, he went ab and since he could not appear before the learned trial Court, he was declared a proclaimed offender by the learned trial Court. It is further argued that never served with any notice/warrants issued by the ordinary place of residence. More so, t proclaimed offender without following the proper procedure prescribed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. He is ready to join the Court proceedings. urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Notice of motion. Ms. Ramta Chowdhary, DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court and is ready to argue the matter, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent She has argued that there is no infirmity in petitioner has rightly been declared a proclaimed away from the process of Court. It is, thus, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the and have also gone through the material placed on record. On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed learned trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed , I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 17.10.2014 suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. -2- bailable warrants were issued against him for Later on, in search of a job and to earn livelihood, he went abroad learned trial Court, he was declared a proclaimed offender by the learned trial Court. It is further argued that he was never served with any notice/warrants issued by the learned trial Court at his . More so, the petitioner had been declared a following the proper procedure prescribed under He is ready to join the Court proceedings. Hence, it is impugned order is liable to be set aside. Ms. Ramta Chowdhary, DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court , accepts notice on behalf of the respondent there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the petitioner has rightly been declared a proclaimed offender as he was running away from the process of Court. It is, thus, urged that the petition is liable to I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the material placed on record. On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed te of initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed , I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. - bailable warrants were issued against him for road learned trial Court, he was declared a he was at his he petitioner had been declared a following the proper procedure prescribed under Hence, it is Ms. Ramta Chowdhary, DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court , accepts notice on behalf of the respondent- the impugned order and the as he was running away from the process of Court. It is, thus, urged that the petition is liable to iderable length On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed te of initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed , I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed with MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.12 19:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36544 8. copies of zim 22.08.2014 received back unserved, proclamation against proclamation was fresh proclamation against the petitioner for 18.09.2014. taken up on since the mandatory period of 30 days had not elap to 17.10.2014 period of 30 days while issuing proclamation for 18.09.2014. Secondly, o perusal of the statement of the serving police official, it is revealed t proclamation was executed only on cause his appearance before the trial Court on the petitioner was not granted mandatory period of 30 days to cause his appearance before the lear violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., as per which, a specified time of not less than 30 days is required to be given to the accused from the date of publishing such proclamation which is mandat in this regard can be placed upon Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 (Criminal) 339. the mandatory period of 30 days, fact that it could not have extended the time by simply adjourning the case as a fresh proclamation was required to be published once the period between 36544-2025 (O&M) After going through the material placed on reco copies of zimni orders passed by the learned 22.08.2014, since the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were received back unserved, the learned trial Court had ordered for issuance of proclamation against him for 29.08.2014 proclamation was received back unexecuted, the learned trial Court issued fresh proclamation against the petitioner for 18.09.2014. taken up on 18.09.2014, the proclamation was received executed. However, since the mandatory period of 30 days had not elap 17.10.2014. First of all, the learned trial Court did not maintain mandatory period of 30 days while issuing proclamation for 18.09.2014. Secondly, o perusal of the statement of the serving police official, it is revealed t proclamation was executed only on 12.09.2014 cause his appearance before the trial Court on the petitioner was not granted mandatory period of 30 days to cause his appearance before the learned trial Court. Hence, the same was in clear violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., as per which, a specified time of not less than 30 days is required to be given to the accused from the date of publishing such proclamation which is mandat in this regard can be placed upon Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339. Further, while adjourning the case to the mandatory period of 30 days, the learned trial Court failed to consider the it could not have extended the time by simply adjourning the case as a fresh proclamation was required to be published once the period between -3- After going through the material placed on record as well as the learned trial Court, it is revealed that on bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were trial Court had ordered for issuance of 29.08.2014. Since on 29.08.2014, the received back unexecuted, the learned trial Court issued fresh proclamation against the petitioner for 18.09.2014. When the case was , the proclamation was received executed. However, since the mandatory period of 30 days had not elapsed the case was adjourned First of all, the learned trial Court did not maintain mandatory period of 30 days while issuing proclamation for 18.09.2014. Secondly, o perusal of the statement of the serving police official, it is revealed that the 12.09.2014, requiring the petitioner to cause his appearance before the trial Court on 18.09.2014, which means that the petitioner was not granted mandatory period of 30 days to cause his ned trial Court. Hence, the same was in clear violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., as per which, a specified time of not less than 30 days is required to be given to the accused from the date of publishing such proclamation which is mandatory in nature. Reliance Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. State of Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR , while adjourning the case to 17.10.2014 to complete the learned trial Court failed to consider the it could not have extended the time by simply adjourning the case as a fresh proclamation was required to be published once the period between - rd as well as the revealed that on bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were trial Court had ordered for issuance of Since on 29.08.2014, the received back unexecuted, the learned trial Court issued When the case was , the proclamation was received executed. However, sed the case was adjourned First of all, the learned trial Court did not maintain mandatory period of 30 days while issuing proclamation for 18.09.2014. Secondly, on a hat the requiring the petitioner to which means that the petitioner was not granted mandatory period of 30 days to cause his ned trial Court. Hence, the same was in clear violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., as per which, a specified time of not less than 30 days is required to be given to the accused from the ory in nature. Reliance State of Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR to complete the learned trial Court failed to consider the it could not have extended the time by simply adjourning the case as a fresh proclamation was required to be published once the period between MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.12 19:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36544 issuance o was less than 30 days. Reference in this context can be made to Singh Vs. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) R.C.R. (criminal) 166 9. reveals that the proclamation was not conspicuous place of the town or to be residing. 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 res village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C. are conjunctive and not dis there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are proved. Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of W.B. : 1973 10. view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities petition is allowed and the impugned order dated passed by the titled as State vs. dated 27.08.2011, registered under Sections 397, 395, 452, 332, 333, 186, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana, 36544-2025 (O&M) issuance of publication of proclamation and the specified period of hearing was less than 30 days. Reference in this context can be made to Singh Vs. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) R.C.R. (criminal) 166 Further, a perusal of the statement of the servi reveals that the proclamation was not conspicuous place of the town or village in which the to be residing. As per Section 82 (2) of Cr.P.C. f 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 part of the Court-house. The three sub 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C. are conjunctive and not dis there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are proved. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of W.B. : 1973 Accordingly, in view of the discussion as made above view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities petition is allowed and the impugned order dated passed by the Court of learned Additional State vs. Devinder Singh and others dated 27.08.2011, registered under Sections 397, 395, 452, 332, 333, 186, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana, -4- f publication of proclamation and the specified period of hearing was less than 30 days. Reference in this context can be made to Dilbagh Singh Vs. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) R.C.R. (criminal) 166. Further, a perusal of the statement of the serving police official reveals that the proclamation was not publically read over in some village in which the petitioner was supposed Section 82 (2) of Cr.P.C. for publication, 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 ides 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 Section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C. are conjunctive and not disjunctive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368. , in view of the discussion as made above and also in view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.10.2014 (Annexure P Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in case Devinder Singh and others, arising out of FIR No. 171 dated 27.08.2011, registered under Sections 397, 395, 452, 332, 333, 186, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana, wher - f publication of proclamation and the specified period of hearing Dilbagh ng police official in some r was supposed 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 ides 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 Section junctive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three Reliance in this regard can be placed upon and also in , the present 17.10.2014 (Annexure P-3), case , arising out of FIR No. 171 dated 27.08.2011, registered under Sections 397, 395, 452, 332, 333, 186, 148 whereby MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.12 19:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-36544 the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 11. Court proceedings which would obviously help in speedy concl he is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of weeks from today and on doing so, the learned trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to his furnishing fresh personal/surety bonds to its satisfaction. 12. Court, his arrest 13. the learned to be dismissed. 14. Rs. 10,000/ High Court Employees’ Welfare Association, Chan this cost shall be a pre personal/surety bonds of the petitioner. 12.08.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 36544-2025 (O&M) the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Keeping in view the fact that Court proceedings which would obviously help in speedy concl is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of from today and on doing so, the learned trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to his furnishing fresh personal/surety bonds to its satisfaction. Till the appearance of the petitioner before the Court, his arrest shall remain stayed. It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before learned trial Court within the stipulated time to be dismissed. However, this relief shall be subject to payment o 0,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner with the High Court Employees’ Welfare Association, Chan this cost shall be a pre-requisite for the learned trial Court to accept the personal/surety bonds of the petitioner. 12.08.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -5- the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is ready to join the Court proceedings which would obviously help in speedy conclusion of trial, is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of from today and on doing so, the learned trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to his furnishing fresh personal/surety bonds to its satisfaction. Till the appearance of the petitioner before the learned It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before the stipulated time, this petition shall be deemed However, this relief shall be subject to payment of cost of , to be deposited by the petitioner with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees’ Welfare Association, Chandigarh. The payment of requisite for the learned trial Court to accept the (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No - , is quashed with all is ready to join the usion of trial, is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of 04 from today and on doing so, the learned trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to his furnishing fresh personal/surety bonds to its satisfaction. learned trial It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before , this petition shall be deemed f cost of Punjab and Haryana digarh. The payment of requisite for the learned trial Court to accept the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.08.12 19:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document