JUDGMENT : 

SUMEET GOEL, J.

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of impugned order dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure P-9) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person under Section 84(1) of the BNSS, in a complaint case No.NACT-2766-2023 titled “Karamjeet Singh versus Sunil Kumar” and a direction has been issued to the concerned SHO to register an FIR under Section 209 of the BNS, 2023 against the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present case. Learned counsel has argued that the impugned order has been passed mechanically and without complying with the mandatory requirements as envisaged under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 84 of the BNSS). Learned counsel has iterated that the petitioner was never duly served with the summons or bailable/non-bailable warrants. Learned counsel has further iterated that purported execution of bailable warrants through family of the petitioner, does not constitute, in law, a valid service. Learned counsel has iterated that while declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person, vide impugned order, no such satisfaction as required under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 84 of the BNSS). has been recorded therein. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law and is, therefore, liable to be set-aside. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order has been passed without properly scrutinizing or verifying the authenticity of the report submitted by the serving constable. Consequently, the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person is unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.

3. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of an affidavit dated 07.01.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel opposed the present petition. While refuting the case set up by the petitioner, detailed arguments were advanced on merits, contending that despite issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants, the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court. Consequently, the petitioner has been rightly declared as proclaimed person, vide impugned order. It has further been pointed out that the learned Court below scrupulously adhered to the procedure prescribed under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 84 of the BNSS), and no infirmity or irregularity is discernible from the record. Learned State counsel has, therefore, contended that the conduct of the petitioner clearly establishes his deliberate defiance of the judicial process and misuse of the concession of bail. Accordingly, dismissal of the instant petition has been prayed for.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully perused the record of the case.

5. The law is well settled that no person can be declared a proclaimed offender/person unless the procedure prescribed under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is meticulously adhered to. It is trite law that the provisions of Section 82 are mandatory in nature, and any non-compliance thereof vitiates the entire proceedings. In the present case, it has been mentioned in the order dated 03.06.2024 passed by the trial Court that bailable warrants were received back executed through family of the petitioner and, thus, the petitioner, despite, having notice & knowledge regarding pendency of the case, deliberately avoided his service. Further, in the order dated 04.11.2024, it has been mentioned that non-bailable warrants were received back unexecuted; hence, proclamation under Sec