CRM-M-13611 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 177 JAGIR SINGH STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SURYA P referred to as ‘impugned order’ First Class Karnal challenge in the present petition Section 528 prayer made by the the offence 2. while holding a trial for the commission of o Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act proclaimed 13611-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH SINGH VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Jaskaran SIngh, Advocate Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The order dated 05.08.2019 referred to as ‘impugned order’, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Karnal, hereinafter being referred to as challenge in the present petition. The present petition has been 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the offence under Section 174-A of IPC, Police Station Sector 32 By virtue of abovementioned order, t while holding a trial for the commission of o 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act proclaimed person. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-13611-2026 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 12.03.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana. (Annexure P-1), hereinafter being passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate referred to as ‘trial Court’ only, is under . The present petition has been filed under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, wherein the petitioner is to quash FIR No.272 dated 24.04.2022, for Police Station Sector 32-33, Karnal. By virtue of abovementioned order, the learned trial Court while holding a trial for the commission of offence punishable under 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, declared the petitioner to be (O&M) .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENTS , hereinafter being passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is under under , wherein the , for 33, Karnal. learned trial Court ffence punishable under the petitioner to be a GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.16 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13611 3. petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act appearance, on various occasions against the petitioner. H petitioner had left 4. Court issued proclamation agai 24.06.2019, of impugned order petitioner to be a 174-A IPC was registered against the petitioner. 5. that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law be quashed as the necessary procedure, BNSS (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), it has been specifically alleged by not publicly read, as prescribed 6. 7. behalf of respondent dispensed with. 8. 13611-2026 (O&M) 2 In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under 138 of NI Act and in the abovementioned appearance, on various occasions, the non against the petitioner. However, the same could not be executed petitioner had left the country and settled in Subsequently, vide order dated issued proclamation against the petitioner for 24.06.2019, statement of serving official was recorded. of impugned order dated 05.08.2019, the learned trial Court petitioner to be a proclaimed person. Consequently A IPC was registered against the petitioner. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), was not it has been specifically alleged by the petitioner that the proclamation was not publicly read, as prescribed under the law. Notice of motion. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice dispensed with. Heard. shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under the abovementioned case due to non non-bailable warrants were issued owever, the same could not be executed as the the country and settled in abroad. Subsequently, vide order dated 22.05.2019, the learned trial nst the petitioner for 05.08.2019. statement of serving official was recorded. Thereafter, by virtue the learned trial Court declared onsequently, the FIR under Section A IPC was registered against the petitioner. 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 prescribed under Section 84 of the was not complied with. In this regard, the petitioner that the proclamation was under the law. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana appears on Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under due to non- issued as the learned trial On by virtue declared the FIR under Section The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging and deserves to prescribed under Section 84 of the complied with. In this regard, the petitioner that the proclamation was appears on is hereby GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.16 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13611 9. was never served with any summons as he had per learned counsel for the petitioner an error, whe a proclaimed person. 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 official had not publicl 10. counsel for shows that the copy of proclamation was not pasted on the conspicuous place of the locality where the petitioner last resided. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, Court, in order is liable to be set 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 the petitioner defect, if any, which might declaring the petitioner 12. 13611-2026 (O&M) 3 It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that was never served with any summons as he had per learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed when without following due process proclaimed person. 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 public place. In addition to above, it has counsel for the petitioner that the statement of serving constable further shows that the copy of proclamation was not pasted on the conspicuous place of the locality where the petitioner last resided. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, because of defective procedure adopted by t declaring the petitioner to be proclaimed order is liable to be set aside. The learned State Counsel has abovementioned arguments. He has contended er 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 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. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner was never served with any summons as he had left for a foreign country. As the learned trial Court has committed n without following due process it declared the petitioner to be proclaimed person. 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 proclamation at a public place. In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned the statement of serving constable further shows that the copy of proclamation was not pasted on the conspicuous place of the locality where the petitioner last resided. As per learned counsel because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial declaring the petitioner to be proclaimed person, the impugned The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. He has contended that in the present case, the er 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 have occurred inadvertently, in the process of to be a proclaimed person. The record has been perused carefully. the petitioner . As the learned trial Court has committed to be proclaimed person. 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 contended by learned the statement of serving constable further shows that the copy of proclamation was not pasted on the conspicuous place of the locality where the petitioner last resided. As per learned counsel he learned trial , the impugned controverted the present case, the beginning was aware of the him, but opted not to appear for long. As per learned State Counsel, technical have occurred inadvertently, in the process of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.16 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13611 13. record the learned trial Court The statement of reads as under 14. executing pasted the copy of proclamation at conspicuous place nor contents of shows that official, the petitioner 15. executing lays down proclaimed person: 13611-2026 (O&M) 4 A perusal of the record shows that the the copy of statement of the executing learned trial Court before declaring the petitioner The statement of executing official, namely under:- “Today on 24.06.2019 I went to Village Ramthali of the accused for serving the proclamation where respectable persons told me that accused Jagbir Singh has gone abroad to Canada. The shop was closed and it being a court case nobody put their signatures. Copy of the proclamation order was pasted on the shop of the accused and another copy was pasted outside the Court. On the third copy of the proclamation, I have noted this statement which I hereby present.” A bare perusal of the above executing official shows that the above-named pasted the copy of proclamation at conspicuous place nor contents of abovementioned proclamation. shows that on the basis of abovementioned statement of the , the petitioner has been declared proclaimed With regard to the above-mentioned procedure adopted by the executing official, it is relevant to mention lays down the following steps, 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 which such person A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has placed on executing official, recorded by the the petitioner to be proclaimed person , namely ASI Ramlal dated 24.06.2019 Today on 24.06.2019 I went to Village Ramthali of the accused for serving the proclamation where respectable persons told me that accused Jagbir Singh has gone abroad to Canada. The shop was closed and it being a court case nobody put their ures. Copy of the proclamation order was pasted on the shop of the accused and another copy was pasted outside the Court. On the third copy of the proclamation, I have noted this statement which I hereby present.” A bare perusal of the above-mentioned statement of the named executing official had neither pasted the copy of proclamation at conspicuous place nor publicly read the proclamation. The order dated 05.08.2019 mentioned statement of the executing proclaimed person. mentioned procedure adopted by the mention here that Section 82(2) of CrPC to be taken before declaring a person to be a “(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:- (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place 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 placed on rded by the person. 24.06.2019 Today on 24.06.2019 I went to Village Ramthali of the accused for serving the proclamation where respectable persons told me that accused Jagbir Singh has gone abroad to Canada. The shop was closed and it being a court case nobody put their ures. Copy of the proclamation order was pasted on the shop of the accused and another copy was pasted outside the Court. On the third copy of the proclamation, I have noted this mentioned statement of the neither publicly read the 05.08.2019 executing mentioned procedure adopted by the CrPC to be taken before declaring a person to be a (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.16 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13611 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 read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, as prescribed un declaring the sustainable in the eyes of law. 18. &Anr.’ CRM CRM-M-50704 conspicuous place of the resides, as abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has b 13611-2026 (O&M) 5 ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village; (c) a copy thereof shall 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 official nowhere depicts that 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. Thus, declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed person le 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 if a proclamation is not read at a 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 b 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.” 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 read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, der Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C. Thus, the impugned order to be a proclaimed person is defective and not 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 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 ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of 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, 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 the proclamation was read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, impugned order is defective and not 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), the order declaring the offender is defective taken by this GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.16 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13611 High Court in the cases of 18 and ‘Tajinder Singh v. State of Punjab 19. abovementioned fact i.e. non-affixation of copy of proclamation at a conspicuous place of the locality and 05.08.2019 defective and 20. petition is by the learned trial Court Section 174 quashed, accordingly 21. disposed of. Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 13611-2026 (O&M) 6 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 in affixation of proclamation affixation of copy of proclamation at a conspicuous place of the locality and non-reading of proclamation 05.08.2019 passed by the learned trial Court is defective and unsustainable 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, along with FIR Section 174-A of IPC, Police Station Sector 32 , accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/ Pal Singh Santa Singh v. State’ AIR 1955 Punjab ’ in CRM-M-21736-2024. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the defect in affixation of proclamation affixation of copy of proclamation at a conspicuous place of the proclamation in public place, the order dated learned trial Court is hereby held to be perverse, of law. As a sequel to abovementioned observations, the present the impugned order dated 05.08.2019 passed FIR No.272 dated 24.04.2022 under Police Station Sector 32-33, Karnal, are hereby Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand :Yes/No : Yes/No Punjab of the defect in affixation of proclamation, affixation of copy of proclamation at a conspicuous place of the dated verse, present passed under hereby Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.16 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document