IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that strict adherence to the procedural requirements of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is essential for declaring a person as proclaimed, including proper publication and the 30-day notice period.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sumeet Goel , J. :- Present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is filed by the accused Ikramuddin in case arising out of FIR No.26, dated 28.05.2021, registered at Women Police Station, Palwal under Sections 67 I.T. Act, 328, 376-D, 506 of IPC, seeking quashing of order dated 05.01.2023 passed by learned Special Court/ ASJ Fast Track, POCSO, Palwal, whereby petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person.

2. Facts germane to adjudication of dispute in present case are that the learned Special Court on the application of I.O. vide order dated 19.09.2022 issued warrant of arrest of the petitioner for 01.10.2022.

3. On 01.10.2022 the warrant of arrest issued against the accused was received back unexecuted, and I.O. moved second application for issuance of warrant of arrest of accused again, which was issued by the learned Special Court for 26.10.2022. However, the learned Special Court adjourned the case beforehand on 21.10.2022, for 05.11.2022 on the ground that the learned presiding officer shall be on compensatory leave on 26.10.2022.

4. On 05.11.2022 learned Special Court held that the warrant of arrest of the petitioner received back unexecuted. The learned Special Court held that warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner thrice but could not be executed. The learned Court further held that it is satisfied that the accused has either absconded and avoiding the execution of warrants or concealing their presence before the Court and cannot be served by way of warrants of arrest. The I.O. then moved application for issuance of proclamation against the accused. The learned Special Court then held that the petitioner be served through publication under Section 82 Cr.P.C. for 06.12.2022, with the direction to the accused to appear in the Court from the day of publication within the period of 30 days.

5. On 06.12.2022 the learned Court recorded that the proclamation against the accused is received back duly executed. Court took on record the report dated 04.12.2022 of the serving constable on record of the case and held that since mandatory period of 30 days has not lapsed, therefore, the case was adjourned to 05.01.2023 for presence of petitioner.

6. On 05.01.2023 the learned Special Court due to nonappearance of the petitioner in the Court declared him proclaimed person in the above mentioned FIR case.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has wrongly been declared proclaimed person in utter derogation of the provisions of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record of the case carefully. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that first time warrant of arrest against the accused was issued vide order dated 19.09.2022. Second time the warrant of arrest was issued against him on 01.10.2022. This fact is apparent from the order dated 01.10.2022 passed by the learned Special Court, wherein it is so recorded. Thereafter, the proceedings in the matter were undertaken by the learned Special Court on 05.11.2022. Therefore, it is wrongly mentioned by the learned Special Court in order dated 05.11.2022 that the warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner thrice. Besides this while recording its satisfaction in the order dated 05.11.2022, that the accused is either absconding and avoiding the execution of warrants or concealing his presence, no objective material, on the basis of which such opinion has been formed by the learned Special Court has been recorded in the order. Both the times the warrants against the petitioner remained unexecuted the learned Court has not mentioned the reason for non-execution of warrants in its orders, so as to make it decipherable that whether the reasons for non-execution of the warrants are attributable to the petitioner or not.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on 06.12.2022 when the proclamation was received back executed for 06.12.2022, th