CRM-M-37223-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 131 CRM-M-37223-2026 Date of Decision : 14.07.2026 JASPREET SINGH ...Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Ms. Bisman Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. **** AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioner, an accused in case bearing FIR No.24 dated 05.02.2020, registered against him for commission of offences punishable u/s 34, 325, 323 IPC at Women Police Station, Patiala, has prayed for quashing of order dated 23.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, vide which he was declared as “Proclaimed Person”. 2. While mentioning the factual backdrop of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after petitioner, a permanent resident of Canada, returned to India on 11.12.2017. Two months thereafter, he solemnized marriage with daughter of complainant, namely, Irbandeep Kaur on 14.02.2018. Thereafter, the two of them went for their honeymoon to a foreign country. On 16.04.2018, he (P) returned to Canada and was joined by his wife, a year later i.e. on 23.04.2019. Continuing further, learned counsel contends that parties resided together in Canada, but due to temperamental differences they could not pull on NISHA 2026.07.17 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37223-2026 -2- together and thus, decided to gracefully part-ways and filed a petition for divorce, which was allowed vide order dated 28.06.2021 (Annexure P-7) passed by Supreme Court of British Columbia, dissolving their marriage. In the light of the submissions advanced hereinabove, learned counsel contends that initiation of criminal proceedings vide FIR No.24 dated 05.02.2020 (copy of which is appended as Annexure P-4 along with petition) was totally uncalled for and on the face of it, suggests that a coloured version has been portrayed therein. Learned counsel next contends that on the day the aforesaid criminal proceedings were initiated, the petitioner was not in India. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the copy of passport of petitioner, appended as Annexure P-6, indicating that petitioner had left for Canada on 16.04.2018. In the factual scenario of the case, when the petitioner's address in Canada had already been mentioned in FIR No. 24 dated 05.02.2020, his presence ought to have been procured in accordance with provisions of Section 105 Cr.P.C. (Section 110 BNSS). 3. The second leg of submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that even the procedural requirements of Section 80 BNSS (erstwhile Section 82 Cr.P.C.) have not been complied with. The attention of the Court has been drawn to the order dated 14.02.2024, which reads as under:- “Report of ASI Balkar Singh received. As per his report publication has been received back duly effected in the newspaper “The Tribune” dated 14.02.2024. Thus, period of 30 days has not been expired yet. Presence of accused be awaited till 19-03-2024.” It is evident that learned trial Court was conscious of the fact that NISHA 2026.07.17 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37223-2026 -3- period of 30 days has not elapsed from the date when the Proclamation was effected and when the accused was directed to appear in the Court, thus, adjourned the case for 19.03.2024. Such an adjournment, is not in ‘sync’ with the procedural requirements of Section 80 BNSS (erstwhile Section 82 Cr.P.C.). In the light of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel prays for setting aside order dated 23.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned trial Magistrate. 4. Heard. Before proceeding further, let us carefully go through Section Section 110 BNSS (erstwhile Section 105 Cr.P.C.), which reads as under:- “105. Reciprocal arrangements regarding processes. (1) Where a Court in the territories to which this Code extends (hereafter in this section referred to as the said territories) desires that (a) a summons to an accused person, or (b) a warrant for the arrest of an accused person, or (c) a summons to any person requiring him to attend and produce a document or other thing, or to produce it, or (d) a search-warrant, [issued by it shall be served or executed at any place, - (i) xxxxxxxx (ii) in any country of place outside India in respect of which arrangements have been made by the Central Government with the Government of such country or place for service or execution of summons or warrant in relation to criminal matters (hereafter in this section referred to as the contracting State), it may send such summons or warrant in duplicate in such form, directed to such Court, Judge or Magistrate, and sent to such authority for transmission, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf;] NISHA 2026.07.17 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37223-2026 -4- (2) Where a Court in the said territories has received for service or execution - (a) a summons to an accused person, or (b) a warrant for the arrest of an accused person, or (c) a summons to any person requiring him to attend and produce a document or other thin or to product it, or (d) a search-warrant, [issued by - (i) a Court in any State or are in India outside the said territories; (ii) a Court, Judge or Magistrate in a contracting State, it shall cause the same to be served or executed] as if it were a summons or warrant received by it from another Court in the said territories for service or execution within its local jurisdiction; and where - (i) a warrant of arrest has been executed, the person arrested shall, so far as possible, be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Sections 80 and 81; (ii) a search-warrant has been executed, the things found in the search shall, so far as possible, be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Section 101 : [Provided that in a case where a summons or search warrant received from a contracting State has been executed, the documents or things produced or things found in the search shall he forwarded to the Court issuing the summons or search warrant through such authority as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf.]” 5. In the case in hand, documents clearly suggests that petitioner was not in India while criminal proceedings were initiated against him. Even in the NISHA 2026.07.17 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-37223-2026 -5- FIR, he is shown to be resident of Cananda. In this eventuality, trial Court should have adhered to the procedure so prescribed under Section 110 BNSS (erstwhile Section 105 Cr.P.C.), rather Proclamation Proceedings u/s 80 BNSS (erstwhile Section 82 Cr.P.C.). were initiated to procure presence of petitioner. While interpreting, the provision of Section 82 (1) Cr.P.C., this Court in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 550, has held that a period of 30 days is required to be given to the accused and that even in case, the Court adjourns the matter subsequently, such adjournment beyond 30 days cannot be treated as compliance of requisite provisions. Similar proposition of law was laid down in Prit Pal Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, CRM-M-40897-2019, decided on 03.02.2020. As noted above, in the factual scenario of the case in hand, recourse ought to have been taken of Section 110 BNSS (erstwhile Section 105 Cr.P.C.). Furthermore, as has been rightly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, the procedural requirements of Section 80 BNSS (erstwhile Section 82 Cr.P.C.) have not been complied with. Resultantly, for want of compliance of the procedure so mentioned in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, proclamation order dated 23.07.2024 is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE 14.07.2026 Nisha Yadav Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NISHA 2026.07.17 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document