IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 28.01.2025 Amandeep Singh @ Aman @ Amna ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another … Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT Present : Ms. Prachi Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Paramjit Singh Bal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepinder Singh Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

None for respondent No. 2.

N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 08.08.2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Payal, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person in a trial arising out of FIR No. 184 dated 26.11.2017 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 506, 148 and 149 IPC registered at Police Station Payal, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on the basis of the statement made by respondent No. 2/complainant, a criminal case bearing FIR No. 184 dated 26.11.2017 under Sections

323, 324, 341, 506, 148 and 149 IPC was ordered to be registered at Police Station Payal, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana against the petitioner, Harvir Singh and three unknown persons. After the registration of the FIR, a compromise dated 26.12.2023 (Annexure P-2) was effected between the parties and the complainant stated that he did not wish to pursue the case any further. Even though the compromise was effected with all the accused, however, a quashing petition, i.e., CRM M-30562 of 2013 was filed only on behalf of Manvir Singh and Jaskaran Singh, accused. The petitioner was under a bonafide impression that the quashing petition qua him had already been filed and due to this, he did not appear before the trial Court and went abroad. Learned counsel further contends that since the petitioner was abroad, the summons/warrants were never served on him. Still, vide order dated 21.02.2023, the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Payal, issued proclamation against the petitioner for 13.04.2023. In compliance of the order dated 21.02.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Payal, the proclamation was published on 26.03.2024. On the adjourned date, i.e., 13.04.2023, the statement of the serving official HC Talwinder Singh was recorded by the trial Court and he stated that he had affixed the proclamation as per law on 26.03.2024. However, on 13.04.2023, the statutory period of 30 days had not elapsed after the publication of the proclamation, the case was adjourned to 11.05.2023 to complete the period of 30 days. Again on 11.05.2023, it was observed by SDJM, Payal, that the period of 30 days had not elapsed and the case may be adjourned to 08.08.2023. Vide the impugned order dated 08.08.2023 (Annexure P-7), the Court had declared the petitioner as proclaimed person.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even the trial Court had admitted that period of 30 days for appearance of the accused had not completed and the case was adjourned twice only for fulfilling the requirements of 30 days as provided under Section 82 Cr.P.C. However, such an adjournment by the trial Court would not fulfill the requirement of law and the impugned order is liable to be quashed by this Court.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel had vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had intentionally not appeared before the trial Court for several months and is not entitled for any relief. It was submitted that the petitioner had the knowledge of pendency of the proceedings against him, however, he chose not to appear before the trial Court and the petition is liable to be dismissed. However, learned State counsel could not rebut the factual submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner in the present case.

5. It has been held by this Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.2013(4) RCR (Cri