CRM-M-13938 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 146 SURINDER KUMAR 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 13938-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH SURINDER KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Tushaar Madaan, Advocate Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG Punjab SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. CRM-13200-2026 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-13938-2026 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-M-13938-2026 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 01.04.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG 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 2026.04.02 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13938 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 82 of CrPC proclaimed petitioner that the proclamation w the law. 6. 13938-2026 (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 82 of CrPC, was not complied with, while declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender. In this regard, it has been specifically alleged by petitioner that the proclamation was not publicly read, as prescribed 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 , while declaring the petitioner a . In this regard, it has been specifically alleged by as not publicly read, as prescribed under , 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 , while declaring the petitioner a the under GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.02 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13938 7. respondent with. 8. 9. was never served with any summons as he learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the petitioner a proclaimed the essential reading of proclamation at a public plac executing place. 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 Counsel, in view of above 13938-2026 (O&M) 3 Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG Punjab respondent-State. Hence service of notice Heard. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner was never served with any summons as he learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the petitioner a proclaimed offender. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of essential steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public plac executing constable 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 Counsel, in view of above, the petitioner Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG Punjab appears on behalf of Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner was never served with any summons as he was not in 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 a . According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case had not publicly read the proclamation at any public 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 a long time. As per learned State the petitioner cannot draw any benefit from appears on behalf of is hereby dispensed 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 a . According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of be taken during the course of proclamation was the the public 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 . As per learned State the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.02 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13938 technical process of 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 13938-2026 (O&M) 4 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. 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 Singh, one copy of pamphlet was pasted on the gate of house of accused Surinder Kumar s/o Charan Dass, Village Chak Khurd, P.S. Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar and one copy at public place of the village and one copy has been Court. Original copy has been returned to learned 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: (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person have occurred inadvertently, in the 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 It is respectfully submitted that in the presence of Kashmir , one copy of pamphlet was pasted on the gate of house of accused Surinder Kumar s/o Charan Dass, Village Chak Khurd, P.S. Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar and one copy at public place of ge and one copy has been pasted on notice board of the Court. Original copy has been returned to learned Court.” 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:- (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person have occurred inadvertently, in the placed on recorded by the offender. dated Kashmir , one copy of pamphlet was pasted on the gate of house of accused Surinder Kumar s/o Charan Dass, Village Chak Khurd, P.S. Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar and one copy at public place of pasted on notice board of the mentioned statement of the named Executing Constable had The order d statement of proclaimed mentioned procedure adopted by the (2) of lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.02 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13938 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 the eyes of law. 18. 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 241 has observed that the Courts are required to ensure that personal service of summons are affected upon accused before issuance of non foreign country, then a valid person 13938-2026 (O&M) 5 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 c such town or village; (c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous 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 i 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 rele ement of executing Constable nowhere 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., declaring the abovesaid person to be a proclaimed not sustainable in the eyes of law. This Court in the case of ‘ 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 241 has observed that the Courts are required to ensure that personal service of summons are affected upon accused before issuance of non-bailable warrants and in case, petitioners are residing in foreign country, then a valid personal service has to be effected through 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.” 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 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 orde said person to be a proclaimed offender is defective and This Court in the case of ‘Jagjit Singh V/s State of Punjab’ 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 241 has observed that the Courts are required to ensure that personal service of summons are affected upon accused before bailable warrants and in case, petitioners are residing in al service has to be effected through it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person onspicuous place of a copy thereof shall 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 n 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 read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, impugned order is defective and State of Punjab’ 2022(4) RCR (Criminal) 241 has observed that the Courts are required to ensure that personal service of summons are affected upon accused before bailable warrants and in case, petitioners are residing in al service has to be effected through GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.02 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13938 embassy of India located at concerned foreign country. It has been further observed in the abovementioned case that the Investigating officer or Magistrate, it would be open for Inve Officer to seek issuance of non concerned and thereafter, non serviced on person upon the petitioners at foreign country. been taken Punjab’ CRM 19. &Anr.’ CRM CRM-M-50704 conspicuous place of the town or resides, as abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed and not sustain High Court in the cases of 18 and ‘Tajinder Singh v. State of Punjab 20. abovementioned fact i.e. non-reading of passed by unsustainable in t 13938-2026 (O&M) 6 embassy of India located at concerned foreign country. It has been further observed in the abovementioned case that the Investigating officer or Magistrate, it would be open for Inve Officer to seek issuance of non-bailable warrants from the Magistrate concerned and thereafter, non-bailable warrants are also required to be serviced on person upon the petitioners at foreign country. taken by this High Court in the case CRM-M-7722-2024. 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 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 in affixation of proclamation reading of proclamation in public place passed by the learned trial Court is hereby held to be sustainable in the eyes of law. embassy of India located at concerned foreign country. It has been further observed in the abovementioned case that if petitioners do not appear before the Investigating officer or Magistrate, it would be open for Investigating bailable warrants from the Magistrate bailable warrants are also required to be serviced on person upon the petitioners at foreign country. Similar view has rt in the case of ‘Sukhman Suri v. State 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 able 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 was a defect in affixation of proclamation in public place, the order dated 01.05.2014 hereby held to be perverse, defective and embassy of India located at concerned foreign country. It has been further do not appear before stigating bailable warrants from the Magistrate bailable warrants are also required to be Similar view has v. State of Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab’ is not read at a village in which such person ordinarily (i)(a), the order declaring the offender is defective taken by this Punjab the was a defect in affixation of proclamation, 01.05.2014 defective and GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.02 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13938 21. petition is by the learned trial Court 22. Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 13938-2026 (O&M) 7 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/ As a sequel to abovementioned observations, the present the impugned order dated 01.05.2014 passed is hereby quashed. :Yes/No : Yes/No present passed GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.02 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document