IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harkesh Manuja, J.
Mahender Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh – Respondent
CRM-M No. 39623 of 2022
Decided On : 28-02-2024
Section 82 Cr.P.C. - Proclaimed Person - The court set aside the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 82(2)(i)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the requirement for the proclamation to be read publicly as per constitutional rights.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was declared as a Proclaimed Person in a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to non-appearance, and sought quashing of the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proclamation was not read publicly as required by Section 82(2)(i)(a) of Cr.P.C., and set aside the order. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the trial court within 10 days and furnish fresh bail/surety bonds.
Issues: Non-compliance with Section 82(2)(i)(a) of Cr.P.C. in declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory compliance with Section 82(2)(i)(a) of Cr.P.C., which stems from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and set aside the order due to the proclamation not being read publicly.
Final Decision: The order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to surrender before the trial court within 10 days, with no coercive steps to be taken against him until then. The petitioner was also directed to deposit costs of Rs. 2,000 with the Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Clerks’ Association.
Judgment
Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.
The petitioner, by way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks quashing of the order dated 31.05.2022 (wrongly typed as 16.05.2022 as explained vide report dated 30.09.2022 furnished by the concerned Judicial Officer) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, whereby he was declared as Proclaimed Person in complaint case No. 5502 of 2020, titled “HDFC Versus Mahender Kumar”.
2. In the present case, having been arrayed as an accused in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner was declared proclaimed person vide order dated 31.05.2022 on account of his non-appearance, resulting into passing of the impugned order dated 31.05.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person, the mandatory compliance of Section 82 Cr.P.C. was not made as the proclamation was never read over in public place by the executant police officer, thereby violating Section 82(2)(i)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She further submits that the initiation of proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was uncalled for as non-bailable warrants against the petitioner were received back unserved.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer made in the petition while submitting that despite having knowledge about the pendency of proceedings as well as the summoning order, the petitioner chose not to appear before the trial Court and thus, the proceedings initiated against him in the impugned order, warrants no interference.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as gone through the paper-book and find substance in submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.
6. In the present case, a perusal of the order dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned JMIC, Chandigarh, shows that the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued for 31.05.2022 as the non-bailable warrants issued against him were received back unserved. A report dated 30.09.2022 which has been submitted by the concerned Judicial Officer shows that in compliance of the order dated 07.03.2022 (P-5), the proclamation was effected on 12.04.2022 with one copy thereof being pasted on the address of the petitioner; another copy pasted at local bus stand; and the third one at the notice board of the District Court besides its announcement in the public. Though, in the statement of the serving constable, namely, Sombir, which was recorded on 31.05.2022, in the shape of a printed proforma, it has been mentioned that the proclamation was “announced in the public”, however, it has nowhere been recorded that the proclamation was ever “read publically” as required under Section 82(2)(i)(a) of Cr.P.C. The trial Court while passing the impugned order dated 31.05.2022 having relied upon the statement dated 31.05.2022, that of executant constable, failed to draw distinction between the “announcement of the proclamation” and “the same having been read publically in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the petitioner was residing”. The provision of Section 82 Cr.P.C. being stemming from Article 21 of the Constitution of India thus inviolable, needs to be complied with mandatorily. Moreover, the statement of executant police official was on a printed proforma instead of same having been recorded in Court, which also raises doubt about the compliance of mandatory procedure, thereby making the petitioner entitled for its benefit.
7. In the given facts, the proclamation having not been read publically, resulting into non-compliance of Section 82 (2) (i) (a) of Cr.P.C., therefore, the order dated 31.05.2022 (wrongly typed as 16.05.2022) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, is set aside; the petitioner is directed to surrender himself before the trial Court / Illaqa Magistrate concerned within 10 days from today and will furnish fresh bail / su
Mandatory compliance with Section 82(2)(i)(a) of Cr.P.C., emphasizing the requirement for the proclamation to be read publicly as per constitutional rights.
The court emphasized that failure to comply with procedural mandates under Section 82 of the Cr PC invalidates the declaration of a person as a proclaimed offender.
The declaration of a person as proclaimed under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is invalid if proper procedural requirements are not followed, including the court's satisfaction regarding the absconder's status.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.