IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-586-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 13.01.2026

Iqvinder Singh ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:- Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for quashing of order dated 31.01.2013 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana in case titled as State vs. Ikwinder Singh, arising out of FIR No. 107 dated 16.07.2010, registered under Sections 323, 452, 148, 149 and 506 of IPC (Sections 324, 325, 326 and 307 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Dakha, Ludhiana, whereby the

petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender.

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was a juvenile at the time of registration of the FIR. He was granted concession of anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order dated 13.09.2010 passed in CRM-M-23681-2010. He was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court, whenever his presence was required. He was under impression that he had been exonerated in this case.

Subsequently, he had gone abroad and could not appear before the Court, which resulted into cancellation of his bail and ultimately into his declaration as a proclaimed offender. It is further argued that co-accused, who faced full length trial, had been acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 307 of IPC. The petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender without following the proper procedure prescribed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. He is ready to appear before the learned trial Court to join the proceedings. Hence, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who has advance notice of the petition, has resisted the petition by submitting that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the petitioner had rightly been declared a proclaimed offender as he was running away from the process of Court. It is, thus, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions.

6. On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed by the learned trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed offender, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 31.01.2023 suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

7. After going through the material placed on record as well as the copies of zimni orders passed by the learned trial Court, it is revealed that on

03.11.2012, since the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were received back unexecuted, the learned trial Court had ordered for issuance of proclamation against him for 12.12.2012. A bare perusal of this order shows that the learned trial Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has not recorded its proper satisfaction that the petitioner had absconded or was concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561.

8. A perusal of the order dated 12.12.2012 reveals that the proclamation was received back served. However, the case was adjourned to 31.01.2013 to complete the period 30 days as prescribed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. However, while adjourning the case to 31.01.2013 to complete the ma