JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J. 

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023/ Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Assandh, whereby, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person, in a case arising out of FIR No.1001 dated 11.12.2018, under Sections 341, 384, 451, 506 & 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), Section 4 of the Essential Service Maintenance Act and Section 5 of the Telegraph Wires (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1950, registered at Police Station Assandh, Karnal as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

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 FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that in the present case, the proclamation was issued vide order dated 21.02.2024 for 22.03.2024 and the same was executed on 06.03.2024 and, thus, requirement of 30 days period from the date of publishing of such proclamation, as envisaged under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C., was not fulfilled. Learned counsel has further asserted that on 22.03.2024, merely adjourning the case for 23.04.2024, cannot be treated as compliance of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. Learned counsel has iterated that statement dated 22.03.2024 of executing officer shows that proclamation was not publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village and therefore, there is clear violation of provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. 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 the trial Court had issued summons, bailable or non-bailable warrants against the petitioner, but the same were received unexecuted and, thus, the petitioner was deliberately avoiding service thereof. 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, 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 is the conceded case that summons, bailable or non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner remained unexecuted. A perusal of statement (appended as Annexure P-5