IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH Amrik Singh ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ….Respondents Date of reserve: December 09, 2025 Date of pronouncement: December 12, 2025 Judgment pronounced: Full Date of Uploading: December 12,, 2025 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Abdul Aziz, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

None for respondent No.2.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), seeking quashing of impugned orders dated 05.07.2024& 31.08.2024 (Annexures P-8 & 10)passed by the learned JMIC, Jagraon, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person, in complaint case bearing No.COMA/161/2023 dated 08.05.2023 titled as “Gian Singh vs Amrik Singh” under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’).

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 vide order dated 18.12.2023, it has been recorded that the petitioner was served through phone, which is contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. Learned counsel has further argued that vide order dated 05.07.2024, learned trial Court, without properly considering the service report, wherein it was stated that the petitioner was not found at his shop, has straightaway proceeded to issue proclamation against him. It is reiterated that the notices issued to the petitioner were never served upon him. Learned counsel argues that the proceedings in question came to the petitioner’s knowledge only when police officials raided his shop, and this fact was also conveyed to him by his neighbours, as he was at that time in a hospital at Delhi due to the illness of his wife. It is further submitted that the trial Court, in a hasty and arbitrary manner, wrongly declared the petitioner a “proclaimed offender” instead of a “proclaimed person”, which is in gross violation of Section 82 Cr.P.C., since the offences involved in the present case do not fall within the ambit warranting such declaration. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable, having been passed without adherence to the statutory mandate, and is therefore liable to be set aside. Consequently, the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed.

3. Learned State counsel has filed a reply by way of an affidavit dated 08.12.2025 of Harjinder Singh, PPS, DSP, Raikot, District Ludhiana (Rural), in Court today, which is taken on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition. While refuting the case set up by the petitioner, learned State counsel has advanced detailed arguments on merits, contending that the petitioner deliberately absented himself from the proceedings, and despite issuance of proclamation, failed to appear before the trial Court. Consequently, it is argued, the petitioner has been rightly declared a proclaimed person vide the impugned order. Learned State counsel further submits that the Court below scrupulously adhered to the procedure prescribed under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and no infirmity, illegality, or procedural irregularity is discernible from the record. It is urged that the conduct of the petitioner clearly establishes his deliberate defiance of the judicial process and misuse of the concession of bail earlier granted to him. Accordingly, dismissal of the instant petition is prayed for.

3.1. Learned State counsel, while referring to the aforesaid reply, particularly paragraph 4 the