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.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Manisha Batra, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 05.07.2023 (Annexure P-15), passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khadur Sahib in case titled as State v. Sukhjinder Singh, arising out of FIR No. 90 dated 07.09.2021, registered under Section 376 IPC at Police Station Veerowal, District Tarn Taran, whereby he had been declared a proclaimed person.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the statement of complainant/respondent No. 2 K' (name withheld) alleging therein that she was married to one Prem Singh 2-3 years back but had no child out of the said wedlock. Since her husband was a drug addict, he used to beat her. She met petitioner Sukhjinder Singh, who used to work in the factory where her husband had also been working. They developed friendship and decided to get married with each other. She took a panchayati divorce from Prem Singh and came to her parental house. She alleged that the petitioner, on the pretext of performing marriage with her, had been maintaining sexual relations with her but he never performed marriage with her, despite giving several assurances. She prayed for taking action against the petitioner. The aforementioned FIR was registered and investigation proceedings were initiated. But the petitioner was never arrested. After completion of investigation and usual formalities, challan was presented in Court. However, since the presence of the petitioner could not be secured, proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated against him and he was declared a proclaimed person, vide impugned order dated 05.07.2023.

3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that while declaring him a proclaimed person, the proper procedure as laid down under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had not been followed. After 20 days of registration of the aforementioned FIR, the petitioner had performed marriage with the complainant and they had been living together as husband and wife, vide Marriage Certificate (Annexure P-2). A compromise has also been reduced in writing on 21.11.2023 and the same has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. The factum of marriage between the parties was brought to the notice of the police but they continued with the case. In fact, the petitioner was never served with the summons/warrants and he had been declared a proclaimed person without following the proper procedure prescribed under Section 82 Cr.P.C. With these broad submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant has submitted that the petitioner had performed marriage with complainant/respondent No. 2 on 26.09.2021 and since then, they are living together as husband and wife. He has further submitted that he has instructions to say that complainant/respondent No. 2 has no objection if the order, declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person, is set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner was having knowledge about the pendency of the trial and had intentionally avoided his appearance before the trial Court. Therefore, he was rightly declared a proclaimed person. 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 initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed person, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 05.07.2023 suffers from material