IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON: 13.02.2026 AMREEK SINGH .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr.Gurvinder Pal Singh, Advocatefor the petitioner.

Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG Punjab.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

CRM-44749-2025 This is an application seeking for placing on record certain documents. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is hereby allowed and the documents annexed with the application are taken on record.

CRM-M-58021-2025

2. The order dated 29.07.2017 (Annexure P-1), hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, passed by the learned Chief Judicial MagistrateKapurthala, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only, is under challenge in the present petition, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’

only.

2. By virtue of abovementioned order, the learned trial Court while holding a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person.

3. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and in the abovementioned case due to non- appearance, on various occasions non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner. However, the same could not be executed as the petitioner had left the country and settled in a foreign country.

4. Subsequently, vide order dated 02.03.2017, learned trial Court issued proclamation against the petitioner for 19.04.2017. On 19.04.2017 the proclamation issued against the petitioner was received back duly effected and the learned trial Court adjourned the case for 06.06.2017 for recording the statement of serving Constable. Thereafter, by virtue of impugned order dated 29.07.2017, the learned trial Court after recording the statement of serving Constable declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender.

5. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), was not complied with. In this regard, it has been specifically alleged by the petitioner that the proclamation was not publicly read, as prescribed under the law.

6. Heard.

7. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that that the petitioner was never served with any summons as he had left for a foreign country in the year 2016. As per learned counsel for the petitioner the learned trial Court has committed an error when without following due process, it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the basic steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case, the executing Constable had not publicly read the proclamation at a public place.

8. In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, in declaring the petitioner to be proclaimed offender, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

9. The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. He has contended that in the present case, the petitioner is a person, who right from the very beginning was aware of the pendency of criminal proceedings against him, but opted not to appear before the Court and remained absent for long. As per learned State Counsel, in view of above the petitioner cannot draw any benefit of the technical defect, if any, which might have occurred inadvertently, in the process of declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender. 10. The record has been perused carefully.

11. A perusal of the record shows