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 null and void.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Manisha Batra, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 02 dated 07.01.2011, registered under Sections 494, 495, 406 and 498A of IPC at Police Station Maqsudan, District Jalandhar (Annexure P-1) along with all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom as well as order dated 04.02.2012 (Annexure P-8), whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender in the proceedings under the aforesaid FIR.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on a written complaint submitted by complainant/respondent No. 2 Sunita alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 11.05.2009. Sufficient dowry was given in the marriage. Even in the engagement ceremony, besides spending an amount of Rs. 35,000/-, a cash amount of Rs. 11,000/- was given as shagun along with gold ornaments by the family of the complainant to the petitioner and his family members. However, a matrimonial discord had arisen between the parties. She alleged that after her marriage with the petitioner, she came to know that the petitioner was already married with one Rajwinder Kaur and he had not taken divorce from her before performing marriage with the complainant. When she raised objection to the same, the petitioner fled away to Canada on 17.05.2009 and had not returned to India since then. With these allegations, the complainant/respondent No. 2 had got registered aforementioned FIR against the petitioner/husband and his family members. After completion of the investigation and usual formalities, challan qua co-accused Gulzar Singh Gill and Surjit Gill was presented in Court. During the course of trial, co-accused Gulzar Singh Gill had died and co-accused Surjit Gill was acquitted by the trial Court, vide judgment dated 29.08.2018. Since the petitioner was residing in Canada, he could not appear before the trial Court, consequent to which, proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated against him and he was declared a proclaimed offender, vide impugned order dated 04.02.2012.

3. By way of filing the present petition, the petitioner has made two folds prayer, i.e. quashing of the FIR in question as well as the order dated 04.02.2012, whereby, he had been declared a proclaimed offender by the trial Court. However, before addressing argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he restricts his arguments only to the extent of quashing the impugned order dated 04.02.2012 (Annexure P-8) and claims relief only on that point.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that while declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender, the proper procedure as laid down under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had not been followed by the trial Court. In fact, when the aforesaid FIR was got registered by respondent No. 2 on 07.01.2011, the petitioner was in Canada and he was never served at his ordinary place of residence in Canada. A perusal of the contents of the FIR would itself reveal that at the time of registration of FIR, the petitioner was in Canada and he never returned to India, before passing of the impugned order declaring him a proclaimed offender. With these broad submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned State counsel has filed the status report. He has argued that the petitioner was having the knowledge about the pendency of the trial and had intentionally avoided his appearance. Therefore, he was rightly declared a proclaimed offender. Hence, it is urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record.

7. On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed by the trial Court from the date of in