CRM-M-36787-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 160 CRM-M-36787-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.07.2026 Kapil Chauhan ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Vishal Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for quashing of order dated 19.05.2025, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram in case arising out of FIR No. 632 dated 03.10.2018, registered under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC at Police Station Palam Vihar, District Gurugram, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person. 2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned case. The petitioner was on bail and was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court. However, he absented himself on 17.07.2024 due to some personal difficulties, consequent to which, his bail was cancelled and non-bailable warrants were issued against him for 13.02.2025. Subsequently, the petitioner could not appear before the Court as he was never served with any notice/warrants issued by the learned trial Court CRM-M-36787-2026 (O&M) -2- at his ordinary place of residence. More so, the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person without following the proper procedure prescribed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. He is ready to join the Court proceedings. Hence, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Learned State counsel, who has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter, has resisted the petition by submitting that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the petitioner has rightly been declared a proclaimed person as he was running away from the process of Court. It is, thus, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 6. On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed by the learned trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed person, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 19.05.2025 suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 7. After going through the material placed on record as well as the copies of zimni orders passed by the learned trial Court, it is revealed that on 13.02.2025, since the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were received back unserved, the learned trial Court had ordered for issuance of proclamation against him for 19.04.2025. A bare perusal of this order shows that the learned trial Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has not recorded its proper satisfaction that the petitioner had absconded or was CRM-M-36787-2026 (O&M) -3- concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561. 8. A perusal of the record also reveals that on 19.04.2025, the proclamation was received back executed but the case was adjourned to 19.05.2025 for completing the mandatory period. However, while adjourning the case to 19.05.2025 to complete the mandatory period of 30 days, the learned trial Court failed to consider the fact that it could not have extended the time by simply adjourning the case as a fresh proclamation was required to be published once the period between issuance of publication of proclamation and the specified period of hearing was less than 30 days. Reference in this context can be made to Dilbagh Singh Vs. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) R.C.R. (criminal) 166. 9. Accordingly, in view of the discussion as made above and also in view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.05.2025, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram in case arising out of FIR No. 632 dated 03.10.2018, registered under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC at Police Station Palam Vihar, District Gurugram, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 10. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is ready to join the Court proceedings which would obviously help in speedy conclusion of trial, he is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of 04 CRM-M-36787-2026 (O&M) -4- weeks from today and on doing so, the learned trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to his furnishing fresh personal/surety bonds to its satisfaction. 11. Till the appearance of the petitioner before the learned trial Court, his arrest shall remain stayed. 12. It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before the learned trial Court within the stipulated time, this petition shall be deemed to be dismissed. 13. However, this relief shall be subject to payment of cost of Rs. 15,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner with the District Legal Services Authority, Gurugram. 09.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari Waseem R. Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No