IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.7968 of 2025 Date of decision: 11.02.2025 Gurbakhshish Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of order dated 14.11.2024 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi, Kapurthala in FIR No.168 dated 12.10.2016 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, which has culminated into a compromise and a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of FIR (supra) has already been filed before this Court i.e. CRM-M No.58372 of 2024, in which the parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court within a period of 02 weeks and on their appearance, the petitioner, who is alleged to have been declared as proclaimed person on 14.11.2024, has earlier also approached this Court by way of filing a petition i.e. CRM-M No.837 of 2020, for seeking quashing of order dated 15.02.2019 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur Lodhi, Kapurthala, vide which he was declared as proclaimed person in FIR (supra). The said petition i.e. CRM-M No.837 of 2020, has already been allowed on 10.01.2025 and the order dated 15.02.2019 vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person was set-aside by this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was never served with the summons or warrants issued by the learned trial Court, and as a result, he was wrongly declared as proclaimed person on 14.11.2024 (Annexure P-9). Aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 14.11.2024 (Annexure P-9), the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition. It is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the mandate of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has not been followed in its letter and spirit by the trial Court. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing. 4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 – State while Mr. Barjinder Singh, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 and supports the order passed by the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put in appearance before the learned trial Court intentionally and deliberately and, therefore, having left with no other option, the proclamation was issued to secure his presence.

6. 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.

7. 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 not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.

8. A perusal of the impugned order clearly indicates that the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person without following the drill of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and the learned Court below issued proclamation without recording reasons of its belief that the p