211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.01.2025 Tejinder Kaur ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Manish Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Nikhil K. Vashisht, Advocate for the complainant.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 483 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the entire proclamation proceedings including the warrants of arrest (Annexure P-4) issued against the petitioner as well as setting aside the impugned order dated 10.04.2023 (Annexure P-11) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st class, Ludhiana in case bearing FIR No.196 dated 04.08.2021 under Sections 420/408/467/468/471/120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Division No.6, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person.

2. On 02.05.2024, the following order was passed:- ‘Through the instant petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., read with Section 483 Cr.P.C. prayer is made for quashing of the entire proclamation proceedings, including the warrant of arrest (Annexure P-4), issued against the petitioner, as well as setting aside of the impugned order dated 10.04.2023 (Annexure P-11), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, in case FIR No.196 dated 04.08.2021, registered under Sections 420, 408, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of IPC, at Police Station Division No.6, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana, whereby, the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person.

On asking for the relief (surpa), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure envisaged under Section 82 of Cr.P.C, has not been meticulously complied with, while declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the FIR, in which the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed person, has been compromised between the parties concerned.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, DAG, Punjab, waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent-State, and he seeks time to file reply in the instant matter.

Mr. N.K. Vashisht, Advocate appears, and accepts notice on behalf of the complainant, and files his duly executed vakalatnama, which is taken on record, and he admits the factum of compromise between the parties.

List on 17.07.2024.

In the meanwhile, the impugned order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person is ordered to be stayed.’

3. The learned State counsel supports the order passed by the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put in appearance before the trial Court intentionally and deliberately and, therefore, having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure her presence.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance and with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

5. While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain a healthy balance between personal liberty of the individual-accused and interests of the society in promoting law and order. Such procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and notsuffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.

6. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court issued proclamation without recording reasons of its belief that the petitioner has absconded or is concealing herself. This Court in the judgment passed in Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406; 2023 (2) Law Herald 1506 has held that the Court is first required to record its satisfaction before issuance of process under Section