IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that strict adherence to the procedural requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. is essential for validly declaring a person as a proclaimed offender.

JUDGMENT :

N.S. Shekhawat, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 16.12.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender in a case arising out of the FIR No. 0083 dated 03.06.2018 under Sections 406, 419, 420 and 201 IPC registered at Police Station Urban Estate, Patiala (Annexure P-1).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a false case FIR No. 0083 dated 03.06.2018 under Sections 406, 419, 420 and 201 IPC at Police Station Urban Estate, Patiala (Annexure P-1) was ordered to be registered against the petitioner. He further contends that after the grant of bail, the petitioner was regularly appearing before the trial Court. However, due to inadvertent mistake in noting down the date of hearing, the petitioner could not appear on 17.05.2022 and as a result of the same, her bail was ordered to be cancelled and the bail bonds/surety bonds were ordered to be forfeited to the State and the petitioner was ordered to be served through non-bailable warrants for 24.08.2022. Thereafter, on 25.08.2022, the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be issued against the petitioner and the case was adjourned to 04.11.2022. On 04.11.2022, the proclamation issued against the petitioner was received back duly effected and the statement of HC Rahul Kumar, serving official was recorded by the Court. In his statement (Annexure P-9), HC Rahul Kumar stated that he had gone to the address of the accused on 03.11.2022 and affixed one copy of proclamation warrant at the door of the house and the second copy of the proclamation warrant was affixed at a public place and the third one was affixed on the notice board of the Court. The statement of HC Rahul Kumar has been reproduced below:

“Statement of HC Rahul Kumar, No. 963/Patiala, P.S. Urban Estate Patial. Proclamation warrant of accused Sandeep Kaur wife of Baljinder Singh, Resident of House No. 37, Green Avenue Basti, Peere Daad Basti Bawa Khel, Jalandhar was entrusted to me for its execution. I went to the address of above said accused on 3.11.2022 and affixed one copy of proclamation warrant at the door of their house and the second copy of proclamation warrant was affixed at public place, the third one was affixed on the notice board of court. Proclamation warrant of accused is Ex.PA and my report is Ex.PB.”

3. Since the proclamation was published on 03.11.2022, i.e., one day prior to the date of hearing fixed before the trial Court for appearance of the accused, it was apparent that a notice of 30 days from the date of publishing such proclamation was not given to the petitioner. Since, the period of 30 days had not elapsed, on 04.11.2022, the trial Court adjourned the case to 16.12.2022 for awaiting the presence of the petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that adjourning the matter for a period of more than 30 days for the appearance of the accused before the Court was not sufficient compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. Apart from that, the Court had failed to appreciate that the proclamation was not read in some conspicuous place in the town/village in which the accused ordinarily resided and the proclamation was not duly published.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently argued that the petitioner was intentionally avoiding the service of summons/warrants and did not appear before the trial Court for a long period. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be upheld by this Court.

5. This Court has held in the matter of Sonu Vs. State of Haryana, 2021 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 319 as under:

8. Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., which provides for publication of proclamation against person absconding, reads as under:

“82. Proclamation for person absconding:

(1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a