Date of Decision: 21.02.2025 Kuldeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT Present : Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner.

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

Mr. Mandeep S. Sachdev, Advocate, 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 09.08.2018 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar in Criminal Complaint No. 9 dated 18.03.2015 titled as “Malkiat Singh Vs. Surinder Singh and others”, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed offender.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that one FIR No. 52 dated 25.05.2012 under Sections 302, 341, 323, 324, 506, 148 and 149 of IPC, Police Station Lohian, District Jalandhar, was registered against 10 accused including the respondent No. 2/complainant in the present case. The respondent No. 2/complainant and other accused were tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar and were ordered to be convicted. As a counter blast to the aforementioned FIR, the respondent No. 2 filed a criminal complaint (Annexure P-1) against the present petitioner and others and vide the summoning order dated 04.08.2016, the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Nakordar, summoned the petitioner and other accused to face trial under Sections 323, 427, 452, 148 and 149 IPC. Learned counsel submits that at the time when the summoning order was passed by the trial Court, the petitioner was not in India and the summoning order was passed at his back. Even thereafter, most of the time, the petitioner was residing abroad and no efforts were made to serve him personally. Ultimately, vide order dated 21.02.2018, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, observed that the petitioner cannot be served through the warrants and he was ordered to be summoned through proclamation under Section 82/83 of Cr.P.C. and directed to appear on 30.03.2018. In compliance of the order dated 21.02.2018, the proclamation was issued on 09.03.2018 and Gulzari Lal, Constable Police Station Lohiya went to the village of the petitioner and published the proclamation. On 23.03.2018, the statement of serving constable was recorded and he stated that he had gone to the house of the petitioner but the petitioner was not found there. Thereafter, the proclamation was affixed on the door of his house, second copy was affixed at the common place in the village and third copy was affixed on the notice board of the Court. However, it is apparent from his statement (Annexure P-5) that the proclamation was not read publicly at some conspicuous place of the village. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner was not declared as proclaimed offender on 30.03.2018, i.e., the date fixed for his appearance before the Court and the case was adjourned to 18.04.2018. Again, the case was taken up on 18.04.2018, 17.05.2018, 31.05.2018 and 05.07.2018, but the petitioner was not declared as proclaimed offender. Ultimately, vide order dated 09.08.2018, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that vide order dated 21.02.2018, the proclamation was issued for appearance of the petitioner on 30.03.2018 and the proclamation was actually published on 23.03.2018 for appearance of the petitioner on 30.03.2018. Thus, the statutory period of 30 days for appearance of the accused, was not provided to the present petitioner, which is in violation of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. Moreover, the proclamation was not read at a public place in the village of the petitioner, which is also violation of the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C.

3. 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