##PAGE1##

CRM-M-15698-2026 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

229

CRM-M-15698-2026 Date of decision: 24.03.2026

MANEET MALHOTRA ….Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

Present:- Mr. Chandra Kumar Jha, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, assailing the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 (Annexure P-3), whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist

Class, Jalandhar has declared the petitioner as a proclaimed person.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR No.200 dated 01.10.2021 under Sections 420/506/120B of IPC, 1860 and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation) Act, 2014 and Section 254 of Immigration Act registered at P.S. Division No.6, Jalandhar. He submits that the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and got recorded his statement on 15.09.2020 and thereafter the petitioner never received any notice or intimation and on 19.02.2025, the proclamation was issued against

GURPREET

2026.03.25 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

CRM-M-15698-2026 2 the petitioner. His absence ultimately resulted in him being declared

proclaimed person vide order dated 28.05.2025 (Annexure P-3).

3. He further argued that petitioner was never served with any notice/warrant. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of statement of serving official (Annexure P-6) and it is amply clear that requirements of section 82 Cr.P.C. (section 84 BNSS) were not complied with. He further submits that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the trial Court on each

and every date of hearing. Hence, he prays for quashing of the said order.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and supports the impugned order, contending that the petitioner deliberately avoided appearance, leaving the trial Court with no

option but to issue proclamation to secure his presence.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

7. The criminal justice system, though permitting curtailment of personal liberty, mandates that such deprivation must strictly conform to the procedure established by law. The said procedure must be fair, just, and

reasonable in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

8. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-14175-2021 titled "Anita Sharma v. State of Punjab ", date of decision 26.03.2021, has

summarized the essential requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. as under:-

GURPREET

2026.03.25 18:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document.

CRM-M-15698-2026 3 "(i) Prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court is sine qua non for issuance and publication of the proclamation and the Court has to first issue warrant of arrest against the person concerned. (See Rohit Kumar v.

State of Delhi: 2008 Crl. J. 2561).

(ii) There must be a report before the Court that the person against whom warrant was issued had absconded or had been concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest could not be executed against him. However, the Court is not bound to take evidence in this regard before issuing a Proclamation under Section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C.

(See Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi: 2008Crl. J. 2561).

(iii) The Court cannot issue the Proclamation as a matter of course because the Police is asking for it. The Court must be prima facie satisfied that the person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence. (See Bishundayal Mahton and others v. Emperor: AIR 1943 Patna 366 and Devender Singh Negi v. State of U.P.: 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC)

1783).

(iv) The requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the proclamation requiring such person to

appear on such dat