CRM-M-28670 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 142 AMANDEEP KAUR STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SURYA P order dated ‘impugned order’ Patti, hereinafter the present petition the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ‘BNSS’ only 2. while holding a trial for the commission of o Sections proclaimed 28670-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH AMANDEEP KAUR VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Ms. Samiksha and Mr. Kirpaljeet Singh for the petitioner. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (oral) The order dated 17.02.2025 order dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P-3) ‘impugned order’, passed by the learned , hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court the present petition. The present petition has been Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita only. By virtue of abovementioned order, t while holding a trial for the commission of o s 153A, 499 of Indian Penal Code, proclaimed person. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-28670-2026 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 20.05.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH s. Samiksha and Mr. Kirpaljeet Singh, Advocates Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. 17.02.2025 (Annexure P-1) and subsequent 3), hereinafter being referred to as passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate trial Court’ only, is under challenge in has been filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter referred to as 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 the petitioner to be (O&M) .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT and subsequent , hereinafter being referred to as Magistrate is under challenge in 528 of ereinafter referred to as he learned trial Court fence punishable under to be GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.20 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28670 3. petitioner under Sections non-appearance, on various occasions against the petitioner. H 4. proclamation against the petitioner for the same on or before 26.02.2025 official was recorded 20.02.2025 the learned trial Court 5. ground that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to 84 of the while declaring the petitioner above, it has been specifically alleged by was not publicly read, as prescribed 6. 7. on behalf of respondent hereby dispensed with. 8. 28670-2026 (O&M) 2 In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioners were facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable Sections 153A, 499 of IPC, and in the abovementioned case appearance, on various occasions, non against the petitioner. However, the same could not be e Subsequently, on 17.02.2025, proclamation against the petitioner for 29 the same on or before 26.02.2025. On 29.03.2025 was recorded with regard to execution of proclamation on 20.02.2025 and thereafter, by virtue of impugned order the learned trial Court declared the petitioner 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 to be a proclaimed person , it has been specifically alleged by was not publicly read, as prescribed under the law. Notice of motion. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice hereby dispensed with. Heard. shell, the facts emerging from record are that the facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable in the abovementioned case due to non-bailable warrants were issued owever, the same could not be executed. on 17.02.2025, the learned trial Court issued 29.03.2025 and directed to publish 29.03.2025 the statement of serving with regard to execution of proclamation on by virtue of impugned order, dated 29.03.2025 the petitioner to be proclaimed person. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), was not complied with proclaimed person. With regard to the petitioner that the proclamation under the law. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears Hence service of notice upon the State shell, the facts emerging from record are that the facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable due to issued issued and directed to publish statement of serving with regard to execution of proclamation on .2025, on the that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section complied with With regard to the petitioner that the proclamation appears upon the State is GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.20 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28670 9. trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process declared the petitioner to be proclaimed person. According to le counsel for the petitioner course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public plac and that in the present case proclamation at a public place. because of defective procedure adop impugned order is liable to be set aside 11. abovementioned arguments. He has contended petitioner pendency of criminal proceedings against the Court and remained absent view of above if any, which might the petitioner 12. 13. record the trial Court, statement of reads as under 28670-2026 (O&M) 3 It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process declared the petitioner to be proclaimed person. According to le 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 plac and that in the present case the executing proclamation at a public place. As per learned because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned State Counsel has abovementioned arguments. He has contended petitioner is the person, who right from the very pendency of criminal proceedings against the Court and remained absent for long. As per learned State Counsel, in view of above, the petitioner cannot draw if any, which might have occurred inadvertently, in the process of declaring petitioner to be proclaimed person. 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 official, namely PHG Lakha Singh reads as under:- “Stated that I received proclamation under section 82 CrPC of accused Amandeep Kaur daughter of Lal Singh, Flat No.35, Ranjit Avenue C-Block Amritsar was ordered to be executed It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process declared the petitioner to be proclaimed person. According to learned , one of the basic steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public plac the executing official did not publicly read the As per learned counsel for the petitioner ted by the learned trial Court, The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. He has contended that in the present case, the person, who right from the very beginning, was aware of the pendency of criminal proceedings against her, but opted not to appear before for long. As per learned State Counsel, in cannot draw any benefit of the technical defect, have occurred inadvertently, in the process of declaring The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has placed on xecuting official, recorded by the learned the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. The PHG Lakha Singh dated 29.03.2025 proclamation under section 82 CrPC of accused Amandeep Kaur daughter of Lal Singh, Flat No.35, Block Amritsar was ordered to be executed It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it arned , one of the basic steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, not publicly read the the petitioner, the controverted the present case, the aware of the not to appear before for long. As per learned State Counsel, in technical defect, have occurred inadvertently, in the process of declaring placed on recorded by the learned . The 29.03.2025, proclamation under section 82 CrPC of accused Amandeep Kaur daughter of Lal Singh, Flat No.35, Block Amritsar was ordered to be executed GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.20 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28670 14. executing publicly read the contents of 29.03.2025 executing 15. executing lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a person to be a proclaimed person: 28670-2026 (O&M) 4 through me. I along with ASI Dilbag Singh No.730/TT, went to said place and took Pardhan Dalip Kumar son of late Des Raj resident of Flat No.40 Ranjit Avenue C on 20.02.2025. We went to above said address of accused and found that house of the accused was locked. Accused was not present in his house. Then I affixed one copy of proclamation at the door of his house and I affixed one copy of the proclamation at the common place of the village and one copy on the notice board of the court. The proc whereas on which my report is Ex.PE. Statement of said Pardhan is Ex.PF. Same is in my hand which bears my signature.” A bare perusal of the ab xecuting official shows that the above- publicly read the contents of abovementioned 29.03.2025 shows that on the basis of above xecuting official, the petitioner has been declared With regard to the above-mentioned procedure adopted by the xecuting official, it is relevant to mention 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; (b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in 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 I along with ASI Dilbag Singh No.730/TT, went to said place and took Pardhan Dalip Kumar son of late Des Raj resident of Flat No.40 Ranjit Avenue C-Block, Amritsar with us on 20.02.2025. We went to above said address of accused and accused was locked. Accused was not present in his house. Then I affixed one copy of proclamation at the door of his house and I affixed one copy of the proclamation at the common place of the village and one copy on the notice board of the court. The proclamation of accused is Ex.PD, whereas on which my report is Ex.PE. Statement of said Pardhan is Ex.PF. Same is in my hand which bears my A bare perusal of the above-mentioned statement of the -named executing official had not abovementioned proclamation. The order dated on the basis of abovementioned statement of the been declared a proclaimed person. mentioned procedure adopted by the , it is relevant to mention here that Section 82(2) of CrPC lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a 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; I along with ASI Dilbag Singh No.730/TT, went to said place and took Pardhan Dalip Kumar son of late Des Raj Block, Amritsar with us on 20.02.2025. We went to above said address of accused and accused was locked. Accused was not present in his house. Then I affixed one copy of proclamation at the door of his house and I affixed one copy of the proclamation at the common place of the village and one copy on the notice lamation of accused is Ex.PD, whereas on which my report is Ex.PE. Statement of said Pardhan is Ex.PF. Same is in my hand which bears my mentioned statement of the had not The order dated mentioned statement of the mentioned procedure adopted by the CrPC lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a (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 which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.20 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28670 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, offender/proclaimed person is defective. 17. statement of read over as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., declaring the above not sustainable in the eyes of law. 18. Anr.’ CRM CRM-M-50704 conspicuous place of the town or 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 28670-2026 (O&M) 5 (ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation t 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 official nowhere depicts that the proclamation was read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., declaring the abovesaid persons to be proclaimed person not sustainable in the eyes of law. This Court in the cases of ‘Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & 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 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’ 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 at a public place in the area where the petitioners ordinarily reside, as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., and the impugned order to be proclaimed persons is defective and 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 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. the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of o 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 where depicts that the proclamation was ordinarily reside, 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 (i)(a), the order declaring the offender is defective n by this Punjab GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.20 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-28670 19. abovementioned fact proclamation dated 29.03.2025 perverse, 20. petition is by the learned trial Court 21. Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 28670-2026 (O&M) 6 Taking into consideration the cumulative effect abovementioned factors, as there was a defect in proclamation, i.e. non-reading of proclamation 29.03.2025 passed by the learned trial Court is defective and unsustainable in the eyes 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/ Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the was a defect in the process proclamation in public place, the order learned trial Court is hereby held to be sustainable in the eyes of law. abovementioned observations, the present the impugned order dated 29.03.2025 passed is hereby quashed. :Yes/No : Yes/No of the of the order hereby held to be present passed GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.20 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document