CRM-M-14406 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 154+173 HARBANS KAUR STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SURYA P documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is hereby allowed and the documents annexed with the application are taken on record. 2. referred to as ‘impugned order’ Magistrate under challenge in the present petition 14406-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH HARBANS KAUR VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Tushaar Madaan, Advocate Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. CRM-12170-2026 This is an application seeking for placing on record certain documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is hereby allowed and the documents annexed with the application are taken on CRM-M-14406-2026 The order dated 01.05.2014 referred to as ‘impugned order’, passed by the learned Magistrate Kapurthala, hereinafter being under challenge in the present petition. The present petition IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-12170-2026 IN/& CRM-M-14406-2026 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 18.03.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. This is an application seeking for placing on record certain documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is hereby allowed and the documents annexed with the application are taken on (Annexure P-3), hereinafter being passed by the learned Chief Judicial being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only . The present petition has been filed (O&M) .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENTS This is an application seeking for placing on record certain documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is hereby allowed and the documents annexed with the application are taken on , hereinafter being Judicial only, is filed GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.20 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14406 under Section hereinafter referred to as 3. while holding a trial for the commission of o Sections 419, petitioner to be 3. petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120 case due to non were issued against the petitioner. H as the petitioner had left 4. Court issued proclamation against the petitioner for by virtue of impugned order considering the report of executing the petitioner a 5. ground, that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to 84 of the while declaring the petitioner a proclaimed been specifically alleged by publicly read, as prescribed 6. 14406-2026 (O&M) 2 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 s 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B petitioner to be a proclaimed offender. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B due to non-appearance, on various occasions issued against the petitioner. However, the same could not be executed as the petitioner had left the country and settled abroad Subsequently, vide order dated issued proclamation against the petitioner for by virtue of impugned order dated 01.05.2014 considering the report of executing Constable the petitioner a proclaimed offender. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner 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 Section 82 of CrPC), while declaring the petitioner a proclaimed been specifically alleged by the petitioner that the proclamation was not publicly read, as prescribed under the law. Notice of motion. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, By virtue of abovementioned order, the learned trial Court while holding a trial for the commission of offence punishable under of Indian Penal Code, declared shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under B of IPC and in the abovementioned appearance, on various occasions, the non-bailable warrants owever, the same could not be executed country and settled abroad. Subsequently, vide order dated 01.03.2014, the learned trial issued proclamation against the petitioner for 01.05.2014. Thereafter 01.05.2014, the learned trial Court after Constable, dated 07.03.2014, declared The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), was not complied with while declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender. In this regard, it has petitioner that the proclamation was not under the law. , 2023, he learned trial Court fence punishable under declared the shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under in the abovementioned bailable warrants owever, the same could not be executed learned trial after, after declared on the that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section complied with, . In this regard, it has petitioner that the proclamation was not GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.20 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14406 7. on behalf of respondent hereby dispensed with. 8. 9. was never served with any summons as he had learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed the basic steps of proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case, the executing constable 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 proclaimed aside. 11. abovementioned arguments. He has contended petitioner is a person, who right from the very pendency of criminal proceedings against before the Court and remained absent in view of above 14406-2026 (O&M) 3 Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice hereby dispensed with. Heard. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner was never served with any summons as he had learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender. 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 a 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, itioner to be proclaimed offender, the impugned order is liable to be set The learned State Counsel has abovementioned arguments. He has contended 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 Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears Hence service of notice upon the State It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner was never served with any summons as he had left the country. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the petitioner to be a . According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of 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 any 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 petitioner is a person, who right from the very beginning was aware of the pendency of criminal proceedings against him, but opted not to appear for long. As per learned State Counsel, cannot draw any benefit of the technical appears upon the State is It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner . As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the petitioner to be a . According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of 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 contended by learned no effort was made by the learned trial Court because declaring the , the impugned order is liable to be set controverted the present case, the beginning was aware of the him, but opted not to appear for long. As per learned State Counsel, technical GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.20 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14406 defect, if any, which might declaring the petitioner 12. 13. record the learned trial Court, The statement of Executing Constable, namely 07.03.2014 14. Executing Constable shows that the above not publicly read the contents of dated 01.05.2014 the Executing Constable, the petitioner offender. 15. Executing Constable, it is relevant to mention CrPC lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a person to be a proclaimed 14406-2026 (O&M) 4 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 Constable learned trial Court, before declaring the petitioner The statement of Executing Constable, namely 07.03.2014, reads as under:- “It is respectfully submitted that in the presence of Chunni Lal, it was ascertained after considerable inquiry that the accused Harbans Kaur wife of Late Som Nath, residence of Village Bilga, District Jalandhar, has left her house and is residing at some other place. Therefore, copies of the proclamation issued by the Hon’ble Court were pasted at a conspicuous place in the Village and also affixed on the Notice Board of the Hon’ble Court” A bare perusal of the above Executing Constable shows that the above not publicly read the contents of abovementioned 01.05.2014 shows that on the basis of above the Executing Constable, the petitioner With regard to the above-mentioned procedure adopted by the Executing Constable, it is relevant to mention lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a person to be a proclaimed offender “(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows: have occurred inadvertently, in the process of to be a proclaimed offender. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has placed on copy of statement of Executing Constable, recorded by the the petitioner to be proclaimed offender The statement of Executing Constable, namely Jaswinder Singh dated submitted that in the presence of Chunni Lal, it was ascertained after considerable inquiry that the accused Harbans Kaur wife of Late Som Nath, residence of Village Bilga, District Jalandhar, has left her house and is residing at re, copies of the proclamation issued by the Hon’ble Court were pasted at a conspicuous place in the Village and also affixed on the Notice Board of the Hon’ble A bare perusal of the above-mentioned statement of the Executing Constable shows that the above-named Executing Constable had abovementioned proclamation. The order on the basis of abovementioned statement of has been declared the proclaimed 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 offender:- “(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:- have occurred inadvertently, in the process of placed on recorded by the offender. dated submitted that in the presence of Chunni Lal, it was ascertained after considerable inquiry that the accused Harbans Kaur wife of Late Som Nath, residence of Village Bilga, District Jalandhar, has left her house and is residing at re, copies of the proclamation issued by the Hon’ble Court were pasted at a conspicuous place in the Village and also affixed on the Notice Board of the Hon’ble mentioned statement of the named Executing Constable had The order mentioned statement of proclaimed mentioned procedure adopted by the (2) of lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.20 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14406 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 executing Constable no 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., declaring the above not sustainable in th 18. &Anr.’ CRM CRM-M-50704 conspicuous place of the town or 14406-2026 (O&M) 5 (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in 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 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 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 Constable nowhere depicts that the proclamatio 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., declaring the abovesaid person to be a proclaimed not sustainable in the eyes of law. This Court in the cases of CRM-M-27944 of 2024 and ‘Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab 50704-2024, has observed that conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily (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.” 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 let 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, as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., and the impugned order said person to be a proclaimed offender is defective and Court in the cases of ‘Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab observed that if a proclamation is not read at a village in which such person ordinarily (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place 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 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, it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of is mandatory in nature. in letter order declaring a person to be a proclaimed that the n was read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, impugned order is defective and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab’ if a proclamation is not read at a village in which such person ordinarily GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.20 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-14406 resides, as 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 18 and ‘Tajinder Singh v. State of Punjab 19. abovementioned fact i.e. non-reading of passed by unsustainable in the eyes 20. petition is by the learned trial Court 21. Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 14406-2026 (O&M) 6 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 reading of proclamation in public place passed by the learned trial Court is hereby held to be sustainable in the eyes of law. As a sequel to abovementioned 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/ prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a), the order declaring the abovesaid person 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 01.05.2014 hereby held to be perverse, defective and As a sequel to abovementioned observations, the present the impugned order dated 01.05.2014 passed is hereby quashed. :Yes/No : Yes/No (i)(a), the order declaring the offender is defective n by this Punjab of the in affixation of proclamation, 01.05.2014 defective and present passed GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.20 16:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document