CRM-M-16004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 172 KULWANT KAUR SANDHU STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SURYA P referred to as First Class under challenge in the present petition under Section hereinafter referred to as 2. while holding a trial for the commission of o 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act proclaimed 3. petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under 16004-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH KULWANT KAUR SANDHU VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Anshul Mehta, Advocate Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG Punjab SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The order dated 29.07.2025 referred to as ‘impugned order’, passed by the learned First Class Jalandhar, hereinafter being referred to as under challenge in the present petition. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’ only. By virtue of abovementioned order, t while holding a trial for the commission of o 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16004-2026 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 24.03.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG Punjab. (Annexure P-14), hereinafter being passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate referred to as ‘trial Court’ only . The present petition has been filed Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, By virtue of abovementioned order, the learned trial Court while holding a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section , 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 (O&M) .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENTS , hereinafter being Magistrate only, is filed , 2023, he learned trial Court fence punishable under Section 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16004 Section 138 of NI Act appearance, on various occasions against the petitioner. H petitioner 4. Court issued same was ordered to be effected on or before 19.04.2025 proclamation issued against the petitioner was effected statutory period of 30 days ha adjourned to 13.06.2025 for since the presiding officer to 29.07.2025 for the purpose already fixed Thereafter, Court after recording the statement of executing Constable petitioner a 5. that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the BNSS (erstwhile declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person 6. 7. respondent with. 16004-2026 (O&M) 2 138 of NI Act and in the abovementioned case appearance, on various occasions, the non against the petitioner. However, the same could not be executed petitioner was not found at home. Subsequently, vide order dated issued a proclamation against the petitioner for same was ordered to be effected on or before 19.04.2025 proclamation issued against the petitioner was effected on 10.05.2025. On 10.05.2025, statutory period of 30 days had not yet elapsed adjourned to 13.06.2025 for the appearance of petitioner. On 13.06.2025, presiding officer was on summer vacations to 29.07.2025 for the purpose already fixed Thereafter, by virtue of impugned order after recording the statement of executing Constable petitioner a proclaimed person. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person Notice of motion. Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG Punjab respondent-State. Hence service of notice in the abovementioned case due to non non-bailable warrants were issued owever, the same could not be executed as the Subsequently, vide order dated 08.04.2025, the learned trial proclamation against the petitioner for 22.05.2025 and same was ordered to be effected on or before 19.04.2025. On 22.05.2025 proclamation issued against the petitioner was received back duly effected 10.05.2025, it was observed that the elapsed, and therefore, the case was appearance of petitioner. On 13.06.2025, on summer vacations, the case was adjourned to 29.07.2025 for the purpose already fixed, i.e. for appearance of petitioner dated 29.07.2025, the learned trial after recording the statement of executing Constable declared The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the Section 82 of CrPC), was not complied with, while declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person. Ms. Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG Punjab appears on behalf of Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed non- issued as the learned trial and the 22.05.2025 duly effected. It it was observed that the case was appearance of petitioner. On 13.06.2025, ourned , i.e. for appearance of petitioner. the learned trial declared the The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the , while appears on behalf of is hereby dispensed GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16004 8. 9. trial Court has committed an error declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, proclamation issued against the petitioner is defective in view of the fact that the proclamation for 22.05.2025 was issued by the learned trial Court on 08.04.2025 person. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, no fresh proclamation was issued by the learned trial Court against the petitioner and only on the basis of previou was issued on proclaimed counsel for the petitioner that where she about the pendency of complaint 10. that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed liable to be set aside. 11. petitioner is a person, who deliberately failed to appear before the learned Court. The learned State Counsel has contended that in the present case, the petitioner is a person, who right from the very beginning was aware of the pendency of cri 16004-2026 (O&M) 3 Heard. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process, it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, proclamation issued against the petitioner is defective in view of the fact that the proclamation for 22.05.2025 was issued by the learned trial Court on 08.04.2025 and on 22.05.2025, the petitioner was not declared a proclaimed . It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, no fresh proclamation was issued by the learned trial Court against the petitioner and only on the basis of previou was issued on 08.04.2025, for 22.05.2025, proclaimed person on 29.07.2025. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner ha where she was earlier residing and therefore, the pendency of complaint as well as In addition to above, it has that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed liable to be set aside. Per contra, the learned State Counsel petitioner is a person, who deliberately failed to appear before the learned Court. The learned State Counsel has contended that in the present case, the petitioner is a person, who right from the very beginning was aware of the pendency of criminal proceedings against It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned when without following due process, it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, proclamation issued against the petitioner is defective in view of the fact that the proclamation for 22.05.2025 was issued by the learned trial Court on , the petitioner was not declared a proclaimed . It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, no fresh proclamation was issued by the learned trial Court against the petitioner and only on the basis of previous proclamation, which for 22.05.2025, the petitioner has been declared It has also been contended by learned the petitioner had already left the addres therefore, she could not come to know as well as the summoning order. also been alleged by the petitioner that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed person, the impugned order is , the learned State Counsel has argued that the petitioner is a person, who deliberately failed to appear before the learned Court. The learned State Counsel has contended that in the present case, the petitioner is a person, who right from the very beginning was aware of the minal proceedings against her, but she opted not to appear It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned when without following due process, it It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, proclamation issued against the petitioner is defective in view of the fact that the proclamation for 22.05.2025 was issued by the learned trial Court on , the petitioner was not declared a proclaimed . It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, no fresh proclamation was issued by the learned trial Court s proclamation, which the petitioner has been declared It has also been contended by learned already left the address, not come to know been alleged by the petitioner that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, in , the impugned order is ed that the petitioner is a person, who deliberately failed to appear before the learned Court. The learned State Counsel has contended that in the present case, the petitioner is a person, who right from the very beginning was aware of the he opted not to appear GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16004 before the Court and remained absent for Counsel, in view of above the petitioner cannot technical defect, if any, which might have occurred, inadvertently, in the process of declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed 12. 13. 13. record the trial Court, statement of as under:- 14. declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed proclamation issued for appearance on procedure, if the statement of 10.05.2025 offender, and 13.06.2025, the petitioner was not declared a proclaimed offender and again case was adjourned for should have been issued 16004-2026 (O&M) 4 before the Court and remained absent for Counsel, in view of above the petitioner cannot technical defect, if any, which might have occurred, inadvertently, in the process of declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner ha the copy of statement of executing trial Court, before declaring the petitioner statement of executing Constable, namely - “It is submitted that, in order to implement the order (advertisement) issued by your Hon’ble court, the department has carried out a public announcement outside the house of the accused. Copies of the advertisement have been pasted at places in the village. One copy of the advertisement has also been displayed on the notice board of the Court. The original copy of the advertisement is being sent for further proceedings.” A perusal of record further declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed proclamation issued for appearance on 22.05.2025 procedure, if the statement of executing 10.05.2025 and on 22.05.2025 the petitioner offender, and the case was adjourned to 13.06.2025, the petitioner was not declared a proclaimed offender and again as adjourned for next date, i.e. for should have been issued against the petitioner. before the Court and remained absent for a long time. As per learned State Counsel, in view of above the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from any technical defect, if any, which might have occurred, inadvertently, in the process of declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has placed on executing Constable, recorded by the learned the petitioner to be the proclaimed person. The , namely HC Karan dated 10.05.2025, reads that, in order to implement the order issued by your Hon’ble court, the department has carried out a public announcement outside the house of the . Copies of the advertisement have been pasted at places in the village. One copy of the advertisement has also been displayed on the notice board of the Court. The original copy of the advertisement is being sent for further further shows that the learned trial Court declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person on the basis of affixation of 22.05.2025, whereas as per laid down executing Constable was recorded on petitioner was not declared a proclaimed to next date, i.e. 13.06.2025 and on 13.06.2025, the petitioner was not declared a proclaimed offender and again next date, i.e. for 29.07.2025, a fresh proclamation against the petitioner. A perusal of record further . As per learned State any technical defect, if any, which might have occurred, inadvertently, in the placed on recorded by the learned . The reads that, in order to implement the order issued by your Hon’ble court, the department has carried out a public announcement outside the house of the . Copies of the advertisement have been pasted at places in the village. One copy of the advertisement has also The original copy of the advertisement is being sent for further that the learned trial Court on the basis of affixation of , whereas as per laid down Constable was recorded on was not declared a proclaimed next date, i.e. 13.06.2025 and on 13.06.2025, the petitioner was not declared a proclaimed offender and again , a fresh proclamation A perusal of record further GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16004 reveals that without Court declared the petitioner a proclaimed person. 15. Executing Constable, it is relevant to mention CrPC lays down that following steps are declaring a person to 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 spirit, the offender/proclaimed person 17. 2023(2) Law Herald 1545 issued for appearance of an accused on a fixed date before the Court, and on that date he is not declared proclaimed person, for subsequent date fresh 16004-2026 (O&M) 5 reveals that without following the abovesaid procedure, Court declared the petitioner a proclaimed person. With regard to the above-mentioned procedure adopted by the Executing Constable, it is relevant to mention lays down that following steps are declaring a person to be a proclaimed person: “(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows: (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides; (b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of 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 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 person ordinarily resides.” With regard to mandatory nature of above has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of abovementioned provisions of Section 82(2) of It has also been held that if the above process is not spirit, the impugned order declaring offender/proclaimed person, is defective. In this regard in the case of ‘ 2023(2) Law Herald 1545, this Court has issued for appearance of an accused on a fixed date before the Court, and on that date he is not declared proclaimed person, for subsequent date fresh following the abovesaid procedure, the learned trial Court declared the petitioner a proclaimed person. mentioned procedure adopted by the Executing Constable, it is relevant to mention here that Section 82(2) of lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a person to be a proclaimed person:- “(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:- (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides; 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, has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of (2) of CrPC is mandatory in nature. the above process is not followed in letter and a person to be a proclaimed ‘Tirlok Chand Vs. State of Haryana has observed that if a proclamation is issued for appearance of an accused on a fixed date before the Court, and on that date he is not declared proclaimed person, for subsequent date fresh the learned trial mentioned procedure adopted by the (2) of necessary to be taken before (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous 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 mentioned procedure, has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of is mandatory in nature. in letter and a person to be a proclaimed Tirlok Chand Vs. State of Haryana’ observed that if a proclamation is issued for appearance of an accused on a fixed date before the Court, and on that date he is not declared proclaimed person, for subsequent date fresh GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16004 proclamation should be issued. Similar view has been taken in the case ‘Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Another decided on 04.09.2024) and 50704- 2024, decided on 28.11.2024) 18. abovementioned f declaring passed by unsustainable in the eyes 19. petition is by the learned trial Court 20. Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 16004-2026 (O&M) 6 proclamation should be issued. Similar view has been taken in the case Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Another decided on 04.09.2024) and ‘Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab 2024, decided on 28.11.2024). Taking into consideration the cumulative effect abovementioned factors, as there was a defect in declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person passed by the learned trial Court is hereby held to be 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 is hereby quashed Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/ proclamation should be issued. Similar view has been taken in the cases of Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Another’ (CRM-M-27944 of 2024, Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab’ (CRM- Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the was a defect in the impugned order while the petitioner a proclaimed person, the order dated 29.07.2025 hereby held to be perverse, defective and sequel to abovementioned observations, the present the impugned order dated 29.07.2025 passed is hereby quashed. :Yes/No : Yes/No s of 27944 of 2024, -M- of the the impugned order while 29.07.2025 defective and present passed GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document