CRM-M-15198 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 181 SUNIL KUMAR STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SURYA P referred to as ‘impugned order’ First Class Karnal challenge in the present petition Section 528 prayer is to quash offence punishable Police Station 2. while holding a trial for the commission of o 15198-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH SUNIL KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Deep Singh Saini, Advocate Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The order dated 13.03.2025 referred to as ‘impugned order’, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Karnal, hereinafter being referred to as challenge in the present petition. The present petition has been 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is to quash FIR No.178 dated 23.04.2025 punishable under Section 209 of , (erstwhile Section Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal. By virtue of abovementioned order, t while holding a trial for the commission of o IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-15198-2026 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 19.03.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana. (Annexure P-13), hereinafter being passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate referred to as ‘trial Court’ only, is under . The present petition has been filed under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, wherein the 23.04.2025, for the commission of 209 of , (erstwhile Section 174-A of IPC By virtue of abovementioned order, the learned trial Court while holding a trial for the commission of offence punishable under (O&M) .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENTS , hereinafter being passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is under under , wherein the commission of A of IPC), he learned trial Court ffence punishable under GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15198 Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act proclaimed 3. petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act appearance, on various dates petitioner. H not residing in his village 4. Court issued proclamation against the petitioner for on 15.10.2024, proclamation was not issued by the concerned therefore, was also directed 03.02.2025 for getting his statement abovementioned proclamation the petitioner received back duly executed and Constable adjourned to 13.03.2025 for awaiting appearance of the petitioner Thereafter Court declared FIR under Section registered against the petitioner. 5. that the impugned order be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the 15198-2026 (O&M) 2 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act proclaimed person. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under 138 of NI Act and in the abovementioned appearance, on various dates non-bailable warrants were petitioner. However, the same could not be executed not residing in his village. Subsequently, vide order dated issued proclamation against the petitioner for on 15.10.2024, proclamation was not issued by the concerned , it was ordered that the proclamation be issued for also directed that the executing Constable 03.02.2025 for getting his statement recorded, abovementioned proclamation. On 03.02.2025 the petitioner received back duly executed and Constable to this effect was recorded adjourned to 13.03.2025 for awaiting appearance of the petitioner after, by virtue of impugned order declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed FIR under Section 209 of BNS (erstwhile Section 174 registered against the petitioner. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, declared the petitioner to be shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under the abovementioned case due to non bailable warrants were issued against the owever, the same could not be executed as the petitioner was Subsequently, vide order dated 20.05.2024, the learned trial issued proclamation against the petitioner for 15.10.2024. However, on 15.10.2024, proclamation was not issued by the concerned Clerk, and proclamation be issued for 13.03.2025. It executing Constable would appear in the Court on recorded, regarding publication of the 03.02.2025, proclamation issued against the petitioner received back duly executed and statement of serving was recorded. On 03.02.2025 the case was adjourned to 13.03.2025 for awaiting appearance of the petitioner dated 13.03.2025, the learned trial proclaimed person. Consequently, (erstwhile Section 174-A of IPC) was The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging is not sustainable in the eyes of law, and deserves to be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the the petitioner to be a shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under non- issued against the was learned trial However, and . It appear in the Court on publication of the proclamation issued against statement of serving the case was adjourned to 13.03.2025 for awaiting appearance of the petitioner. the learned trial , the was The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging and deserves to be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15198 BNSS (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), it has been specifically alleged by not publicly read, as prescribed 6. 7. behalf of respondent dispensed with. 8. 9. was never served with any summons as he per learned counsel for the petitioner an error, whe a proclaimed person. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the basic steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamati official had not publicly read the 10. counsel for to serve process upon the petitioner on his correct address, and that of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, petitioner to be aside. 11. abovementioned arguments. He has contended 15198-2026 (O&M) 3 (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), was not it has been specifically alleged by the petitioner not publicly read, as prescribed under the law. Notice of motion to respondent No.1 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 was never served with any summons as he per learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has when without following due process proclaimed person. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the basic steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case, the executing had not publicly read the proclamation at In addition to above, it has counsel for the petitioner that no effort was made by the learned trial Court to serve process upon the petitioner on his correct address, and that of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, petitioner to be a proclaimed person, the impugned order The learned State Counsel has abovementioned arguments. He has contended was not complied with. In this regard, the petitioner that the proclamation was under the law. to respondent No.1. 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 the petitioner was never served with any summons as he was not residing in his village. As the learned trial Court has committed n without following due process it declared the petitioner to be proclaimed person. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the basic steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading on at a public place, and that in the present case, the executing proclamation at the public place. In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned no effort was made by the learned trial Court to serve process upon the petitioner on his correct address, and that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, in declaring the , the impugned order is liable to be set The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. He has contended that in the present case, the complied with. In this regard, that the proclamation was appears on is hereby the petitioner . As committed to be proclaimed person. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the basic steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading on at a public place, and that in the present case, the executing contended by learned no effort was made by the learned trial Court because declaring the is liable to be set controverted the present case, the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15198 petitioner is a person, who right from the very pendency of criminal before the Court and remained absent in view of above the petitioner defect, if any, which might declaring the petitioner 12. 13. record the learned trial Court The statement of 14. executing had not publicly read the contents of order dated of the executing person. 15. executing 15198-2026 (O&M) 4 petitioner is a person, who right from the very pendency of criminal proceedings against before the Court and remained absent for long. As per learned State Counsel, in view of above the petitioner cannot draw defect, if any, which might have occurred inadvertently, 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 the executing learned trial Court before declaring the petitioner The statement of executing Constable reads as under “Stated that in the present complaint, raid was conducted many time at the house of accused Sunil. A copy of proclamation/publication pasted on 30.12.2024 place upon the house of accused and second copy pasted outside the court and third copy Ahlmed/Bahadur of this court. Accused intentionally did not meet.” A bare perusal of the above executing Constable shows that the abovementioned had not publicly read the contents of abovementioned order dated 13.03.2025 shows that on the basis of above xecuting Constable, the petitioner With regard to the abovementioned procedure adopted by the executing Constable, it is relevant to mention petitioner is a person, who right from the very beginning was aware of the proceedings against him, but opted not to appear for long. As per learned State Counsel, cannot draw any benefit of the technical have occurred inadvertently, in the process of 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 the petitioner to be a proclaimed person reads as under:- Stated that in the present complaint, raid was conducted many time at the house of accused Sunil. A copy of proclamation/publication pasted on 30.12.2024 at conspicuous place upon the house of accused and second copy pasted outside the court and third copy has been submitted to the Ahlmed/Bahadur of this court. Accused intentionally did not A bare perusal of the above-mentioned statement of the Constable shows that the abovementioned executing Constable abovementioned proclamation. The on the basis of abovementioned statement , the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed mentioned procedure adopted by the , it is relevant to mention here that Section 82(2) of beginning was aware of the him, but opted not to appear for long. As per learned State Counsel, technical in the process of placed on rded by the person. Stated that in the present complaint, raid was conducted many time at the house of accused Sunil. A copy of conspicuous place upon the house of accused and second copy pasted has been submitted to the Ahlmed/Bahadur of this court. Accused intentionally did not mentioned statement of the Constable proclamation. The mentioned statement proclaimed mentioned procedure adopted by the (2) of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15198 CrPC lays down be a proclaimed person: 16. 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, the offender/proclaimed person is defective. 17. statement of read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, as prescribed un declaring the sustainable in the eyes of law. 18. &Anr.’ CRM 15198-2026 (O&M) 5 lays down the following steps, to be taken before declaring a person to be a proclaimed person:- “(2) The proclamation shall be published (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides; (b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or 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 copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circula 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 executing official nowhere depicts that the proclamation 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. Thus, declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed person sustainable in the eyes of law. This Court in the cases of CRM-M-27944 of 2024 and ‘Gagandeep to be taken before declaring a person to “(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 the 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 was read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, i)(a) Cr.P.C. Thus, the impugned order to be a proclaimed person is defective and not Court in the cases of ‘Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab to be taken before declaring a person to (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 to some conspicuous place of a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily ting in the place in which such mentioned procedure, it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of tory in nature. in letter order declaring a person to be a proclaimed that the where depicts that the proclamation was read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, impugned order is defective and not Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab Singh v. State of Punjab’ GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15198 CRM-M-50704 conspicuous place of the town or resides, as abovesaid pe 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 Punja 19. abovementioned factors, as there i.e. non-reading of passed by unsustainable in the eyes 20. petition is by the learned trial Section 209 of accordingly 21. disposed of. Gaurav Thakur 15198-2026 (O&M) 6 50704-2024, has observed that if a proclamation is not read at a 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 in affixation of proclamation reading of proclamation in public place passed by the learned trial Court is hereby held to be perverse, sustainable in the eyes of law. As a sequel to abovementioned observations, petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated by the learned trial Court, along with FIR 209 of , Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 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 rson 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 of the was a defect in affixation of proclamation in public place, the order dated 13.03.2025 hereby held to be perverse, defective and As a sequel to abovementioned observations, the present the impugned order dated 13.03.2025 passed FIR No. 178 dated 23.04.2025, under , Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal, are hereby quashed Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand :Yes/No : Yes/No observed that 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 of the was a defect in affixation of proclamation, dated 13.03.2025 defective and present passed under quashed, Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.23 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document