JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)

1. This is the first petition filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking quashing of impugned order dated 31.05.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot (Annexure P-8), whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person and quashing of the complaint No.61 dated 24.04.2019 (Annexure P-7) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the prayer with regard to quashing of the complaint bearing No.61 dated 24.04.2019 and seeks liberty to file a separate petition for the same. However, she confines her prayer to the extent of quashing of impugned order dated 31.05.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridkot (Annexure P-8), whereby, the petitioner was declared as P.O.

3. Prayer is allowed with liberty as prayed for.

4. Brief facts of the case as alleged are that the petitioner in connivance with other co-accused got executed the false sale deed dated 16.12.1996 for the land owned by the private respondents, situated in the revenue estate of village Singhe Wala and Tare Wala, Tehsil and District Moga. As such, they committed offence under Sections 191, 196, 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B of IPC. Hence the complaint.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that proclamation was issued against the petitioner without following the drill of Section 82 Cr.P.C. and non-compliance of the mandatory provisions vitiates the entire proceedings, which suffers from incurable illegality as he was never served and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. Notice of motion.

7. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State and supports the order passed by the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put in appearance before the trial Court intentionally and deliberately and, therefore, having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure his presence.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

9. While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain a healthy balance between personal liberty of the individual-accused and interests of the society in promoting law and order. Such procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.

10. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court issued proclamation without recording reasons of its belief that the petitioner has absconded or is concealing himself. This Court in the judgment passed in Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406; 2023 (2) Law Herald 1506 has held that the Court is first required to record its satisfaction before issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and non-recording of the satisfaction itself makes such order suffering from incurable illegality. In the judgment passed by this Court in Sonu Vs. State of Haryana 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 319, it has been held that the conditions specified in Section 82 (2) Cr.P.C. for the publication of a proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. Any non-compliance therewith cannot be cured as an irregularity' and renders the proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity.

11. The sole purpose of issuance of non-bailable warrants or issuance of proclamation is to secure presence of the accused before the trial Court. The petitioner in the present case has himself come forward.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the ratio of law laid down in Major Singh @ Major (su