CRM-M-13780 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 176 SUKHVINDER SINGH LUBANA @SUKHWINDER SINGH STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SURYA P referred to as ‘impugned order’ Judicial Magistrate only, is under challenge in the present petition filed under Section hereinafter referred to as 2. while holding a trial for the commission of o 420 of Indian Penal Code 3. petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under 13780-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH SUKHVINDER SINGH LUBANA @SUKHWINDER SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate for Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The order dated 20.02.2013 referred to as ‘impugned order’, passed by the learned Magistrate Dasuya, hereinafter is under challenge in the present petition 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 of Indian Penal Code, declared the petitioner to be In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-13780-2026 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 16.03.2026 SUKHVINDER SINGH LUBANA @SUKHWINDER SINGH .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH for the petitioner. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. (Annexure P-7), hereinafter being passed by the learned Sub-Divisional , hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court is under challenge in the present petition. The present petition has been 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 Section the petitioner to be a proclaimed person shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under (O&M) .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT , hereinafter being Divisional trial Court’ has been , 2023, he learned trial Court fence punishable under Section person. shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.17 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13780 Section 420 on various occasions petitioner. H the country and settled abroad 4. Court issued proclamation against the petitioner for 09.01.2013 adjourned virtue of impugned order the petitioner a 5. that the impugned order is not sustainable in be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person specifical read, as prescribed 6. 7. on behalf of respondent hereby dispensed with. 8. 9. was never served with any summons as he had 13780-2026 (O&M) 2 420 of IPC and in the abovementioned case on various occasions, the non-bailable warrants were petitioner. However, the same could not be executed the country and settled abroad. Subsequently, vide order dated issued proclamation against the petitioner for 09.01.2013 the statement of serving constable adjourned to 20.02.2013, for appearance of virtue of impugned order dated 20.02.2013 the petitioner a proclaimed person. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging that the impugned order is not sustainable in be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person ly alleged by the petitioner that the proclamation 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. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner was never served with any summons as he had in the abovementioned case due to non-appearance, bailable warrants were issued against the owever, the same could not be executed as the petitioner had left Subsequently, vide order dated 31.10.2012, the learned trial issued proclamation against the petitioner for 09.01.2013. statement of serving constable was recorded and the case was for appearance of the petitioner. Thereafter, 20.02.2013, the learned trial Court declared 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 be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), was not complied with, while declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person. In this regard, it has been the petitioner that the proclamation was not publicly Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears Hence service of notice upon the State It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner was never served with any summons as he had left the country in the year appearance, issued against the as the petitioner had left learned trial On was recorded and the case was , by declared The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the , while . In this regard, it has been the petitioner that the proclamation was not publicly appears upon the State is It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner in the year GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.17 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13780 2003. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the basic step proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case, the executing proclamation at a public 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 pendency of criminal proceedings against before the Court and remained absent in view of above defect, if any, which might declaring the petitioner 12. 13. record the learned trial Court, 13780-2026 (O&M) 3 2003. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the petitioner to be 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 constable proclamation at a public place. 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, petitioner to be proclaimed person, 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 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. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner ha the copy of statement of Executing Constable learned trial Court, before declaring the petitioner 2003. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. According to learned counsel for the s to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in constable had not publicly read the 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 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. 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 person 2003. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. According to learned counsel for the s to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in had not publicly read the ontended 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 for long. As per learned State Counsel, technical have occurred inadvertently, in the process of placed on recorded by the person. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.17 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13780 The statement of Executing Constable, namely 09.01.2013, 14. Executing Constable shows that the above not publicly read the contents of dated 20.02.2013 the Executing Constable, the petitioner person. 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 person: 13780-2026 (O&M) 4 The statement of Executing Constable, namely 09.01.2013, reads as under:- “On receiving proclamation of accused Sukhwinder Singh, I went to the house of accused on 07.01.2013, but he did not meet me. I recorded the statement of Gurmeet Kaur mother of accused who stated that accused had gone to abroad for last 11 years. Accordingly I affixed one copy of the proclamation at the outer gate of the house of accused Sukhwinder Singh at common place and one copy of the proclamation was affixed on the notice board of this Court. Ex.P1 and my report is Ex.P2. A bare perusal of the above Executing Constable shows that the above not publicly read the contents of abovementioned 20.02.2013 shows that on the basis 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 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 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 conspicuous place of such town or village; (c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some The statement of Executing Constable, namely Paramjit Singh dated receiving proclamation of accused Sukhwinder Singh, I went to the house of accused on 07.01.2013, but he did not meet me. I recorded the statement of Gurmeet Kaur mother of accused who stated that accused had gone to abroad for last 11 I affixed one copy of the proclamation at the outer gate of the house of accused Sukhwinder Singh, one copy and one copy of the proclamation was affixed on the notice board of this Court. Statement of Sarpanch is Ex.P2.” 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 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; 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 dated receiving proclamation of accused Sukhwinder Singh, I went to the house of accused on 07.01.2013, but he did not meet me. I recorded the statement of Gurmeet Kaur mother of accused who stated that accused had gone to abroad for last 11 I affixed one copy of the proclamation at the , one copy and one copy of the proclamation was affixed Statement of Sarpanch is mentioned statement of the named Executing Constable had The order mentioned 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 such person 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 conspicuous GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.17 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13780 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 o 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 13780-2026 (O&M) 5 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 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 d 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 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 person is defective and not sustainable 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 conspicuous place of the town or village in 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’ 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 order said person to be a proclaimed person is defective and 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 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 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 where depicts that the proclamation was read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, impugned order said person to be a proclaimed person is defective and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab’ if a proclamation is not read at a which such person ordinarily (i)(a), the order declaring the offender is defective taken by this Punjab GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.17 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13780 19. abovementioned fact i.e. non-reading of passed by unsustainable in the eyes 20. petition is by the learned trial Court 21. Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 13780-2026 (O&M) 6 Taking into consideration the cumulative effect abovementioned factors, as there was a def reading of proclamation in public place passed by the learned trial Court is hereby held to be sustainable 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 is hereby quashed Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/ Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the was a defect in affixation of proclamation in public place, the order dated 20.02.2013 hereby held to be perverse, defective and abovementioned observations, the present the impugned order dated 20.02.2013 passed is hereby quashed. :Yes/No : Yes/No of the ect in affixation of proclamation, 20.02.2013 defective and present passed GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.17 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document