IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANJIV BERRY, J.
Abhinav Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M-64052 of 2023
Decided On : 20-12-2023
JUDGMENT
Sanjiv Berry, J. (Oral)
By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought quashing of the impugned order dated 28.05.2019 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person in FIR No.252 dated 01.07.2017 registered under Section 381 of IPC, registered at P.S. Sector 5, Panchkula, District Panchkula (Annexure P-2).
2. It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner after having been granted bail in the aforesaid FIR had been regularly appearing in the Court. When, during the course of proceedings, due to miscommunication of date, he could not appear and was marked absent and later ordered to be summoned through bailable warrants of arrest and finally with proclamation vide order dated 16.03.2019. She further submits that vide the impugned order dated 28.05.2019 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in this case relying upon the statement of the Executing Official, which was recorded on the same day and perusal of the statement (Annexure P-5) reveals that the proclamation was effected on 23.05.2019 and specified period of 30 days had not lapsed when the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person and therefore there is violation of provisions contained in Section 82 Cr.P.C. She contends that the petitioner is not facing any other criminal case.
3. Notice of motion.
4. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, DAG, Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that as per the information, there is no other criminal case registered against the petitioner.
5. Arguments heard.
6. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record in the form of zimni orders placed on record by learned counsel for the petitioner, it transpires that the petitioner after having been arrested in the aforesaid FIR (Annexure P-2) was granted concession of bail and had been appearing in the Court. It is evident from the order dated 11.09.2018 (Annexure P-4) that the petitioner absented from the proceedings leading to cancellation of his bail and issuance of warrants of arrest.
7. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the absence of the petitioner was not intentional, but due to some miscommunication of date for that day.
8. Further perusal of the orders placed on record reveals that on 16.03.2019, the warrants of the petitioner were received back unexecuted and the learned trial Court proceeded to issue proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. for 28.05.2019 and on that day, relying upon the statement of the Executing Official, the learned Court passed the impugned order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person in this case.
9. During the course of hearing, the attention of the Court has been drawn to the statement of the Executing Official SPO Mahabir Singh, recorded by learned trial Court on 28.05.2019 (Annexure P-5) wherein he had categorically stated that on 23.05.2019, he had conducted search for the accused and also about his whereabouts and thereafter copy of proclamation was pasted on main gate of the house of the petitioner, another at the Bus Stand and one copy in the Court Complex. Therefore, from the statement, it is revealed that the proclamation for the presence of the petitioner was effected by the Executing Official only on 23.05.2019 and the petitioner had been declared as proclaimed person in this case vide order dated 28.05.2019.
10. In the backdrop of above facts and circumstances, it would be relevant to refer to provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. which is read as under:
The declaration of a person as proclaimed under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is invalid if the mandatory 30-day notice period is not adhered to.
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 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.
The court emphasized the mandatory requirement of a 30-day notice period under Section 82 Cr.P.C. for declaring a person as proclaimed, which was violated in this case.
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.