IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MANISHA BATRA, J.
Amarjit Singh Doad – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-40175 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 22-12-2023
JUDGMENT
Mrs. Manisha Batra, J. (Oral)
CRM-49232-2023
Prayer in this application is for preponing the date of hearing of the main petition, which is fixed for 09.01.2024.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The main petition is preponed and taken up today itself.
2. CRM-M-40175-2020 (O&M)
The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 16.07.2018, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshiarpur in case titled as State v. Amarjit Singh Doad, arising out of FIR No. 88 dated 22.08.2017 registered under Sections 406 and 498-A of the IPC at Police Station Mehtiana, District Hoshiarpur, whereby he had been declared a proclaimed person.
3. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner had been nominated as an accused in the aforementioned case and vide order dated 16.07.2018, he was declared a proclaimed person, though he was in Spain at that time. He had never received any notice/summons or warrants at his place of residence in Spain. Neither he was served through Indian Embassy located in Spain. He had continuously remained at Spain with effect from 19.02.2016. The proclamation proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Therefore, prayer has been made by the petitioner for setting aside the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that a compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner and complainant. A separate petition for quashing of FIR has also been filed by the petitioner, in which the factum of compromise has been brought on record. He has submitted that the complainant has no objection if the order, declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person, is set aside.
5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has argued that the petitioner had intentionally and will fully avoided the service of notice/execution of warrants and had absconded in order to face trial and had been declared a proclaimed person after following due procedure of law. Therefore, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record accordingly.
7. On giving due deliberation to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties and on overall perusal of the orders passed by the trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed offender, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 17.07.2018 suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
8. At the outset, it would be relevant to refer to the provision of Section 82 Cr.P.C., which provides for publication of proclamation against the person absconding. It reads as under:
Proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. must adhere to strict procedural requirements, including prior issuance of arrest warrants and proper publication, to avoid nullity.
The declaration of a proclaimed person under Section 82 Cr.P.C. must follow strict procedural requirements, and failure to comply renders the order invalid.
The court emphasized the necessity of following proper procedures under Section 82 Cr.P.C. for declaring a person a proclaimed offender, highlighting that non-compliance renders such declarations nul....
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.