Mr. M.M.S. Bedi, J.: - A large number of petitions are being filed by absconding accused persons, seeking quashing of the orders declaring them “proclaimed offenders” on the misconceived notion that, since they are not accused of the offences punishable as mentioned in Section 82 (4) Cr.P.C. (added by Section 12 of Act No. 25 of 2005) i.e. under Sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of Indian Penal Code, they cannot be declared proclaimed offenders. There are few instances in which such pleas are raised and believed to quash the proclamations declaring accused as “proclaimed offenders” for violation of Section 82 (4) Cr.P.C. Sub-Section (4) of Section 82 Cr.P.C. which has raised controversy reads as under:-

“Section 82 (4): Where a proclamation published under sub-section (1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under section 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the Indian Penal Code, and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect.”

2. In the present case also the petitioner having been declared a proclaimed offender in FIR No. 341 dated December 27, 2010 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station DLF-II, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon, has challenged the order dated October 31, 2011, passed by the Court of CJM, Gurgaon, declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender. The main ground of challenge is that the said order has been passed in violation of the provisions of Section 82 (4) Cr.P.C., as the offences for which the petitioner is sought to be prosecuted and punished, do not fall under the list of offences which are specified in Section 82 (4) Cr.P.C. Petitioner claims that the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is thus liable to be quashed.

The provisions of Section 82 (4) and (5) Cr.P.C. were introduced by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act 2005) (25 of 2005) by Section 12 w.e.f. June 23, 2006, hereinafter referred to as the Act 25 of 2005 . Prior to the said amendment, Section 82 Cr.P.C. contained only sub-sections (1) , (2) and (3) pertaining to the proclamation of persons absconding.

REQUIREMENT OF INTERPRETATION OF SECTIION 82 (4) Cr.P.C.

3. The present petition warrants interpretation, construction and determination of scope and applicability of sub-sections (4) of Section 82 Cr.P.C. as on the basis of isolated literal construction of Section 82 (4) Cr.P.C., avoiding harmonious and Contextual interpretation, in relation to other provisions of Cr.P.C. and IPC. Few decisions have been rendered by different Courts, setting aside declarations of proclaimed offenders, of lower Courts, being violative of Section 82 (4) Cr.P.C.. Few of the instances cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are as follows:-

i) Satinder Singh Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh and another, 2001 (2) RCR (Crl.) 89. In the said case, the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender was set aside merely on the ground that it was in violation of provisions of Section 82 (4) Cr.P.C.;

ii) In Rahul Dutta Vs. State of Haryana, [2012(1) Law Herald (P&H) 832] : 2012 (2) RCR (Crl.) 585, while considering the application for regular bail pending trial in offences under Sections 498 A, 406 read with Section 174-A IPC, the scope of Section 82 (4) Cr.P.C. was considered in context to the amendment by Act No. 25 of 2005, holding that the term “proclaimed offender” has different connotations and that a person who is evading the execution of warrants of arrest he should under the special sections of IPC mentioned in Section 82 (4) Cr.P.C. can only be declared to be a “proclaimed offender” and a person under the other provisio