A court lacks the jurisdiction to declare an individual a 'proclaimed offender' unless they are accused of one of the specific serious offences enumerated in the relevant statutory provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and such declaration is invalid without following the mandatory inquiry procedure defined by law.

ORDER :

P. M. Raval, J.

1. Rule fixed forthwith. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent–State.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. N.P. Acharya for the applicant and learned APP Mr. K.M. Antani for the respondent–State.

3. By way of the present writ petition, the applicant has assailed the order dated 07.05.2026 passed below Exh.24 in Criminal Case No.17 of 2018 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Dhandhuka, Ahmedabad (Rural), whereby the application preferred under Section 84 of the Cr.P.C. came to be rejected on the ground that the same was barred by limitation, having not been filed within six months from the date of attachment, and also on merits.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the Delhi High Court as well as the Punjab and Haryana High Court have consistently taken the view that, in the absence of a person being declared a proclaimed offender after following the procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C., the consequential proceedings cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that only in respect of the offences enumerated under sub-clause (4) of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. can a person be declared a proclaimed offender. Since an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not one of the offences contemplated under Section 82(4) of the Cr.P.C., the proceedings undertaken by the trial Court are without jurisdiction. On the aforesaid grounds, it is urged that the present petition be allowed.

5. Learned APP Mr. K.M. Antani, on the other hand, submitted that the facts involved in the judgments relied upon by the applicant are distinguishable. According to him, in those cases the challenge was to FIRs registered under Section 174A of the IPC, whereas in the present case the applicant has challenged an order passed by the learned trial Court under Section 84 of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the application under Section 84 was admittedly filed beyond the prescribed period and was therefore rightly rejected as time-barred. Learned APP further submitted that, if at all the applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by the Magistrate, he has an alternative remedy under Section 84(4) of the Cr.P.C. to establish his right in respect of the property in dispute within a period of one year from the date of such order. Under the circumstances, it is urged that the present petition be rejected.

6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. This Court has gone through the impugned order as well as the correspondence produced at Exh.21 on record. The letter dated 10.02.2026 written by the Senior Police Inspector, Vashi Police Station, Navi Mumbai, clearly indicates that vide communication dated 09.02.2026, the Circle Officer, Belapur, Navi Mumbai, had initiated the process of attachment of the property. The said communication further reveals that it would take approximately 10 to 15 days to complete the entire procedure. Thus, it transpires that as on 10.02.2026, the attachment of the property had not been completed. It further transpires from the panchnama placed on record that the attachment proceedings were ultimately carried out on 13.05.2026.

7. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the present applicant, who is the son of the original accused facing trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, had already lodged a missing person complaint regarding