CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 126 Manoj Kumar State of Punjab CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. 2023, seeking quashing of order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 145/2016 titled as State vs. Manoj Kumar Jha in FIR No.51 dated 05.03.2015 registered under Sections 419, 420, 506 of IPC at Police Station Samrala, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender. 2. petitioner has iterated that the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender is not sustainable and is liable to be set iterated that the Court below, Cr.P.C., 1973 further argued that no effective steps were taken in the case to serve the petitioner with warrants bef been further iterated that the impugned order has been passed based on fabricated and false reports. It is respectfully submitted by the learned -38332-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Manoj Kumar V/s State of Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Gurminder S. Salana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG Punjab. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed under Section 582 of BNS, 2023, seeking quashing of order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samrala in case CIS No. CHI 145/2016 titled as State vs. Manoj Kumar Jha in FIR No.51 dated 05.03.2015 registered under Sections 419, 420, 506 of IPC at Police Station Samrala, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana whereby the petitioner clared as proclaimed offender. While assailing the impugned order, 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 that the Court below, in blatant violation of the provisions of the 1973 straightway proceeded to issue non further argued that no effective steps were taken in 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 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-38332-2025 Date of decision: 25.08.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Gurminder S. Salana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG Punjab. Present petition has been filed under Section 582 of BNS, 2023, seeking quashing of order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-9), passed Class, Samrala in case CIS No. CHI 145/2016 titled as State vs. Manoj Kumar Jha in FIR No.51 dated 05.03.2015 registered under Sections 419, 420, 506 of IPC at Police Station Samrala, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana whereby the petitioner While assailing the impugned order, 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 furthe in blatant violation of the provisions of the straightway proceeded to issue non-bailable warrants. It is further argued that no effective steps were taken in the case to serve the ore 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 .2025 Present petition has been filed under Section 582 of BNS, assed Class, Samrala in case CIS No. CHI- 145/2016 titled as State vs. Manoj Kumar Jha in FIR No.51 dated 05.03.2015 registered under Sections 419, 420, 506 of IPC at Police Station Samrala, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana whereby the petitioner While assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed aside. It has been further in blatant violation of the provisions of the It is further argued that no effective steps were taken in the case to serve the ore 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.28 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- counsel that the petitioner was neither personally served wi was any process 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 inab deliberate. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law and is, therefore, liable to be set-aside. Furthermore, the Court belo order, has failed to adopt the procedure envisaged under the law and thereby vitiated the entire process. Hence, the impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. 3. seeking quashing of the order declaring the petitioner as offender in the case. While refuting the case of the petitioner, detailed arguments concerning the merits of the cas the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious and heinous. Referring to the short reply filed by way of affidavit of Superintendent of Police, Samrala, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana, has submitted that the proclamation order was passed strictly in accordance with law as the petitioner, despite having full knowledge of the trial proceedings willfully evaded his appearance before the Court. According to him, the conduct of the pet to obstruct the course of justice. learned State counsel that the petitioner was served thorough non warrants but he did not appear which compelled the Court below to dec -38332-2025 counsel that the petitioner was neither personally served wi was any process 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 of the petitioner to join the proceedings was not deliberate. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law and is, therefore, liable aside. Furthermore, the Court belo order, has failed to adopt the procedure envisaged under the law and thereby the entire process. Hence, the impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender is unsustainable and deserves to be set Learned State counsel has opposed the claim of the petitioner seeking quashing of the order declaring the petitioner as offender in the case. While refuting the case of the petitioner, detailed arguments concerning the merits of the cas the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious and heinous. Referring to the short reply filed by way of affidavit of Superintendent of Police, Samrala, Police District Khanna, District , has submitted that the proclamation order was passed strictly in accordance with law as the petitioner, despite having full knowledge of the trial proceedings willfully evaded his appearance before the Court. According to him, the conduct of the pet to obstruct the course of justice. Furthermore, it has been submitted by the learned State counsel that the petitioner was served thorough non warrants but he did not appear which compelled the Court below to dec 2 counsel that the petitioner was neither personally served with any notice nor was any process 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 ility of the petitioner to join the proceedings was not deliberate. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law and is, therefore, liable aside. Furthermore, the Court below, while passing the impugned order, has failed to adopt the procedure envisaged under the law and thereby the entire process. Hence, the impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender is unsustainable and deserves to be set Learned State counsel has opposed the claim of the petitioner seeking quashing of the order declaring the petitioner as a 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 Tarlochan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samrala, Police District Khanna, District , has submitted that the proclamation order was passed strictly in accordance with law as the petitioner, despite having full knowledge of the trial proceedings willfully evaded his appearance before the Court. According to him, the conduct of the petitioner shows a deliberate attempt Furthermore, it has been submitted by the learned State counsel that the petitioner was served thorough non-bailable warrants but he did not appear which compelled the Court below to declare th any notice nor was any process 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 ility of the petitioner to join the proceedings was not ex facie illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law and is, therefore, liable w, while passing the impugned order, has failed to adopt the procedure envisaged under the law and thereby the entire process. Hence, the impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender is unsustainable and deserves to be set- Learned State counsel has opposed the claim of the petitioner proclaimed offender in the case. While refuting the case of the petitioner, detailed e were made and it is argued that the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious and heinous. Referring Tarlochan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samrala, Police District Khanna, District , has submitted that the proclamation order was passed strictly in accordance with law as the petitioner, despite having full knowledge of the trial proceedings willfully evaded his appearance before the Court. itioner shows a deliberate attempt Furthermore, it has been submitted by the bailable lare AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.28 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- him proclaimed person vide impugned order. Instead of surrendering before the competent Court, the petitioner has cho which clearly reflects his conduct that he was fully aware of the proceedings and the coercive mea presence. Moreover, it has been stated that the learned Court below followed the procedure as laid in letter and spirit and no discrepancy whatsoever is forthcomin records of the case. 4. perused the record of the case. 5. procedure, adopted by the trial Court. As per the settled legal position, it is mandatory for the trial Court to record the statement of the concerned serving official, while dealing with the pr In the instant case, no publication was made and moreover nor the particulars of the non-compliance of the Section 82 of Cr.P.C. which renders the procla and further proceedings null and void. been undertaken was merely a paper formality Despite the aforesaid glaring irregularities, the Court below p mechanically pass the impugned order person, in complete disregard enshrined in the Cr.P.C. It appears that the impugned order reflects a stereotyped and perfunctory mind. The Judicial Magistrate noted that the “proclamation warrants of -38332-2025 him proclaimed person vide impugned order. Instead of surrendering before the competent Court, the petitioner has cho 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 the learned Court below followed the procedure as laid-down under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in letter and spirit and no discrepancy whatsoever is forthcomin records of the case. I have heard 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 the statement of the concerned serving official, while dealing with the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, no publication was made and moreover nor the particulars of the proclamation were compliance of the Section 82 of Cr.P.C. which renders the procla and further proceedings null and void. In the instant case, it is evident that the process claimed to have been undertaken was merely a paper formality Despite the aforesaid glaring irregularities, the Court below p mechanically pass the impugned order, declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person, in complete disregard of the mandatory procedural safeguards enshrined in the Cr.P.C. It appears that the impugned order reflects a stereotyped and perfunctory approach, rather than a judicious application of mind. The Judicial Magistrate noted that the “proclamation warrants of 3 him proclaimed person vide impugned order. Instead of surrendering before the competent Court, the petitioner has chosen to file the instant petitioner which clearly reflects his conduct that he was fully aware of the proceedings sures undertaken by the Court below to secure his presence. Moreover, it has been stated that the learned Court below down under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in letter and spirit and no discrepancy whatsoever is forthcoming from the I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully 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 the statement of the concerned oceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, no publication was made and moreover, neither the date were mentioned and as such there is compliance of the Section 82 of Cr.P.C. which renders the proclamation t is evident that the process claimed to have been undertaken was merely a paper formality, without actual compliance Despite the aforesaid glaring irregularities, the Court below proceeded to declaring the petitioner a proclaimed the mandatory procedural safeguards enshrined in the Cr.P.C. It appears that the impugned order reflects a rather than a judicious application of mind. The Judicial Magistrate noted that the “proclamation warrants of him proclaimed person vide impugned order. Instead of surrendering before to file the instant petitioner which clearly reflects his conduct that he was fully aware of the proceedings sures undertaken by the Court below to secure his presence. Moreover, it has been stated that the learned Court below down under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 g from the I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully 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 the statement of the concerned oceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. date mentioned and as such there is mation t is evident that the process claimed to have without actual compliance. roceeded to declaring the petitioner a proclaimed the mandatory procedural safeguards enshrined in the Cr.P.C. It appears that the impugned order reflects a rather than a judicious application of mind. The Judicial Magistrate noted that the “proclamation warrants of AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.28 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- arrest” issued against the petitioner of the serving official and presumed that reasonable step undertaken i.e. the petitioner and hence completed. As is apparent from the bare perusal of the order 25.11.2024 on the basis of the report forwarded by the serving official, observed that the service upon petitioner’s non to the effect that the petitioner was declared 6. antithesis to the provisions of Section 82 of the Code 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 would amount to abuse of Procedure Code, 1973 reads as under: -38332-2025 arrest” issued against the petitioner was shown as served, of the serving official and presumed that reasonable step undertaken to bring the publication to the notice of the proclaimed person i.e. the petitioner and hence held that the publication process completed. As is apparent from the bare perusal of the order 25.11.2024 as also order dated 24.12.2024 on the basis of the report forwarded by the serving official, observed that the upon the present petitioner had been effected and consequent to the petitioner’s non-appearance on the concerned dates to the effect that the petitioner was absconding. Accordingly, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender. I find the course adopted by the Judicial Magistrate, as antithesis to the provisions of Section 82 of the Code 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 impugned order is not sustainable in law and amount to abuse of the 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 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 specif a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such 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; 4 was shown as served, as per the report of the serving official and presumed that reasonable steps had been to bring the publication to the notice of the proclaimed person the publication process stood duly completed. As is apparent from the bare perusal of the orders dated 24.12.2024, the learned Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of the report forwarded by the serving official, observed that the been effected and consequent to the appearance on the concerned dates recorded his satisfaction absconding. Accordingly, the petitioner I find the course adopted by the Judicial Magistrate, as antithesis to the provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 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. is not sustainable in law and its continuation process of law. Section 82 of the Criminal 82. Proclamation for person absconding. - (1) If any Court has reason her 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 such (2) The proclamation shall be published as follows: - (i)(a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or h person ordinarily resides; as per the report had been to bring the publication to the notice of the proclaimed person duly dated , the learned Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of the report forwarded by the serving official, observed that the been effected and consequent to the satisfaction absconding. Accordingly, the petitioner I find the course adopted by the Judicial Magistrate, as of Criminal Procedure, 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. continuation process of law. Section 82 of the Criminal (1) If any Court has reason her 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 ied 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.28 12:44 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 an accused in the case of ‘ 319’, held as under: -38332-2025 (b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village; (c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous pa house; (ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides. (3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the 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 declarat (5) The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration 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 of the provision of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against an 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 f 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 proclama 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 the warrant of arrest could not be executed against him. However, the 5 (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 the manner specified in clause (i) of sub-section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Section have been complied with, amation 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 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. 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 an Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 9. The essential requirements of section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 f issuance and publication of proclamation against an absconder and declaring him as proclaimed 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 (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 rt 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 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, 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 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 sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration section (4) as they apply to the proclamation 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 declaring him as proclaimed person/offender may be summarized as (i) Prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court is sine qua non for tion and the Court has to first issue warrant of arrest against the person concerned. (See Rohit Kumar v. (ii) There must be a report before the Court that the person against whom been concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest could not be executed against him. However, the AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.28 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-38332-2025 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 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 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 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 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 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; 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 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 pr 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 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 villa to some conspicuous part of the Courthouse and report regarding 6 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 elhi : 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 t, 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 (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 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 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) i) 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 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 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 orders a copy of the proclamation has to be additionally published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which the accused ordinarily oclamation 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 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 (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 t, 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 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 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 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) i) 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 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 (c) in 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 oved. (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 oclamation 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 ge and to some conspicuous part of the Courthouse and report regarding AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.28 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 8. 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 th unsustainable. petitioner Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr vitiated by 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 under Section 82 of the Cr law. -38332-2025 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 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 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 complie 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 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 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 th sustainable. The impugned order dated petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C vitiated by procedural irregularities and non 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 under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., thereby rendering the declaration 7 publication may be made on the fourth copy of the proclamation. Additional copy will be required where the proclamation is also required 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. (viii) The Court issuing the proclamation has to make a statement in r 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: (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 pliance therewith cannot be cured as an 'irregularity' and renders the Proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity. (See 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 cited 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 dated 24.12.2024 vide which a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the C.), deserves to be set aside as it is procedural irregularities and non-compliance with 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 y rendering the declaration non est publication may be made on the fourth copy of the proclamation. Additional copy will be required where the proclamation is also required 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. (viii) The Court issuing the proclamation has to make a statement in r 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 d with and that the proclamation was published on such day. (See Birad Dan v. State: (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 pliance therewith cannot be cured as an 'irregularity' and renders the Proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity. (See Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu v. State of U.P. and another: 1994 CriLJ 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 e present case is clearly vide which the a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the ), deserves to be set aside as it is compliance with mandatory statutory requirements. A perusal of the sequence of events leading to the issuance of the proclamation reveals that the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First procedural safeguards enshrined est in AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.28 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 9. wherein the Ld. JMIC noted that the petitioner/accused had failed to appear before the petitioner/accused was deliberately evading service and hence issued coercive steps. more than 30 days not appear and the proclamation in the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender. is pertinent to highlight that the procedure contemplated under Section 82(1) CrPC is mandatory and cannot be circumvented. For a person to be declared a proclaimed offender, 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 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 petitioner a proclaimed offender legally unsustainable. 10. must strictly comply with t case (supra be issued mechanically or as a matter of course. 9 of Sonu’s case (supra -38332-2025 The genesis of the matter lies in the order dated wherein the Ld. JMIC noted that the petitioner/accused had failed to appear before the Court and, as a consequence, petitioner/accused was deliberately evading service and hence issued coercive steps. Finally, on 25.11.2024, the L more than 30 days had elapsed since the proclamation of accused but he did not appear and was thus, intentionally avoiding the proceedings. Moreover proclamation for the service of the accused was in the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender. is pertinent to highlight that the procedure contemplated under Section 82(1) CrPC is mandatory and cannot be circumvented. For a person 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. H 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 sfaction strikes at the root of the proclamation proceedings and renders the subsequent order declaring the petitioner a 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 Section 82 cannot be issued mechanically or as a matter of course. Sonu’s case (supra) mandates that the 8 The genesis of the matter lies in the order dated 16.11.2024 wherein the Ld. JMIC noted that the petitioner/accused had failed to appear ourt and, as a consequence, the Court held that the petitioner/accused was deliberately evading service and hence issued , the Ld. JMIC proceeded to note that elapsed since the proclamation of accused but he did intentionally avoiding the proceedings. Moreover for the service of the accused was duly served, culminating in the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender. At 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 to be declared ourt 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 ourt 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 sfaction strikes at the root of the proclamation proceedings and renders the subsequent order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender legally proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C., 1973 he 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 16.11.2024 wherein the Ld. JMIC noted that the petitioner/accused had failed to appear the Court held that the petitioner/accused was deliberately evading service and hence issued d. JMIC proceeded to note that elapsed since the proclamation of accused but he did intentionally avoiding the proceedings. Moreover duly served, culminating At 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 to be declared ourt 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 owever, 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 sfaction strikes at the root of the proclamation proceedings and renders the subsequent order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender legally ., 1973 Sonu’s the Court laid down that a declaration under Section 82 cannot of para specifically ascertain AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.28 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 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. 11. public notice, must be published in a prescribed manner, giving the accused a stipulated time to appear before the neither followed nor recorded in the prese non-compliance with mandatory requirements under Section 82 Cr 1973 and the failure to adhere to the guidelines laid down in renders the declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed offender legally infirm. Consequently, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside in the interests of justice 12. law that the Court 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 Procedu present case. Perusal of order dated 24.12.2024 been recorded while issuing the proclamation that the accused 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 -38332-2025 and record its satisfaction regarding the accused’s intent to evade the process of law. 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, 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 prese compliance with mandatory requirements under Section 82 Cr and the failure to adhere to the guidelines laid down in renders the declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed offender legally firm. 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 issuing the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., ust 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 Procedu present case. Perusal of order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate shows that no satisfaction has been recorded while issuing the proclamation that the accused ded 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 no pub 9 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, must be published in a prescribed manner, giving the accused ourt. This procedural safeguard was neither followed nor recorded in the present case. In view of the above, the compliance with mandatory requirements under Section 82 Cr.P. and the failure to adhere to the guidelines laid down in Sonu’s case renders the declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed offender legally firm. Consequently, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set It is pertinent to mention that by now it is a settled principle of the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., ust 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 clearly lacking in the present case. Perusal of order dated 25.11.2024 as also order dated passed by the Judicial Magistrate shows that no satisfaction has been recorded while issuing the proclamation that the accused-petitioner has ded 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 no publication was ever made, which 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, must be published in a prescribed manner, giving the accused ourt. This procedural safeguard was In view of the above, the .C., case renders the declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed offender legally firm. Consequently, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set It is pertinent to mention that by now it is a settled principle of the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., ust 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 re is clearly lacking in the as also order dated passed by the Judicial Magistrate shows that no satisfaction has petitioner has ded 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 which AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.28 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- clearly shows that he was never served with any warrants before issuance of proclamation against him. 13. Judicial Magistrate, declaring the petitioner as proclaime relied upon statement of serving official to hold that the proclamation issued against the petitioner has been effected. As was enunciated in para 9 (vi) of the judgment in the case of published in the publication conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to some consp 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 14. Procedure having serious ramifications concerning his presence in the criminal trial proceedings ought not 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 complied with that regard. Non as proclaimed offender vitiates the proclamation proceedings initiated against the accused. -38332-2025 clearly shows that he was never served with any warrants before issuance of proclamation against him. Strangely, the impugned order dated Judicial Magistrate, declaring the petitioner as proclaime relied upon statement of serving official to hold that the proclamation issued against the petitioner has been effected. As was enunciated in para 9 (vi) of the judgment in the case of Sonu (supra) published in the manner laid down in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. For publication, the proclamation has first conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to some consp 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 The provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure having serious ramifications concerning his presence in the criminal trial proceedings ought not and cannot be invoked in casual and cavalier manner. The requirement of ng 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 avail that regard. Non-adherence to said requirement while declaring the accused as proclaimed offender vitiates the proclamation proceedings initiated against the accused. 10 clearly shows that he was never served with any warrants before issuance of the impugned order dated 24.12.2024 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. As was enunciated in para 9 (vi) of (supra),the proclamation has to be manner laid down in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. For the proclamation has first to be 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. s 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 and cannot be invoked in casual and cavalier manner. The requirement of ng 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 based on relevant material available on record of the case in adherence to said requirement while declaring the accused as proclaimed offender vitiates the proclamation proceedings initiated clearly shows that he was never served with any warrants before issuance of passed by the d offender has relied upon statement of serving official to hold that the proclamation issued against the petitioner has been effected. As was enunciated in para 9 (vi) of the proclamation has to be manner laid down in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. For publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily icuous 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. s of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal the right of the accused concerning his presence in the criminal trial proceedings ought not and cannot be invoked in casual and cavalier manner. The requirement of ng 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 able on record of the case in adherence to said requirement while declaring the accused as proclaimed offender vitiates the proclamation proceedings initiated AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.28 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 12. criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner particularly when the petitioner has already joined the investigation and has cooperate it would be an appropriate case for exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and to bring to an of the FIR 13. circumstances of the present case, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 24.12.20 Magistrate, 1 vs. Manoj Kumar Jha in FIR No.51 dated 05.03.2015 registered under Sections 419, 420, 506 of IPC at Police Station Samrala, Police Khanna, District Ludhiana offender is quashed concerned petitioner, the present petition 14. accordingly. August 25 Ajay -38332-2025 Hence, no useful purpose would be served by keeping t criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner particularly when the petitioner has already joined the investigation and has cooperate it 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 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 petition is allowed and the order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-9), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samrala in case CIS No. CHI vs. Manoj Kumar Jha in FIR No.51 dated 05.03.2015 registered under Sections 419, 420, 506 of IPC at Police Station Samrala, Police Khanna, District Ludhiana whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender is quashed subject to petitioner appearing before the trial concerned Court on or before 11.09.2025. In case of default at the end of petitioner, the present petition shall be deemed to be dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. August 25, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 11 Hence, no useful purpose would be served by keeping t criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner particularly when the petitioner has already joined the investigation and has cooperated and hence it would be an appropriate case for exercise of powers under Section 482 of 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 9), passed by the learned Judicial Class, Samrala in case CIS No. CHI-145/2016 titled as State vs. Manoj Kumar Jha in FIR No.51 dated 05.03.2015 registered under Sections 419, 420, 506 of IPC at Police Station Samrala, Police District whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed subject to petitioner appearing before the trial . In case of default at the end of be deemed to be dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Hence, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner particularly when the and hence it would be an appropriate case for exercise of powers under Section 482 of 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 9), passed by the learned Judicial 145/2016 titled as State vs. Manoj Kumar Jha in FIR No.51 dated 05.03.2015 registered under District whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed subject to petitioner appearing before the trial/ . In case of default at the end of the Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.28 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -38332-2025 12 AJAY KUMAR 2025.08.28 12:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document