258 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19877-2018 Date of Decision: 25.02.2025 HARJINDER SINGH ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

PAWAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER ...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. S. GREWAL Present: Mr. Kiran Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Ravinder Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab.

H. S. GREWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 24.10.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Phillaur, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender in a complaint case No.COMI/53/2017 (Instituted on 19.07.2012) titled as Pawan Kumar Vs. Surjit Singh and others, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent no.1 Pawan Kumar has filed a criminal complaint on

19.07.2012 under Sections 326, 323, 382, 148 and 149 IPC against the present petitioner and four others. Vide order dated 16.05.2014 (Annexure P-2) the trial Court has summoned all the accused including the present petitioner to face the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was never served in the present case. Under the impression that since the petitioner has not been served in the present case he went abroad in November, 2016 and came back to India in the year, 2018. After coming back to India the petitioner was shocked to find that he has been declared as proclaimed offender by the trial Court vide order dated 24.10.2016. Learned counsel further contends that since the petitioner was abroad, the summons/warrants were never served on him. Still, vide order dated 24.10.2016, the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Phillaur, issued proclamation against the petitioner for 21.09.2016. In compliance of the order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Phillaur, the proclamation was published on 30.08.2016. However, on 21.09.2016, the statutory period of 30 days had not elapsed after the publication of the proclamation, the case was adjourned to 22.10.2016 to complete the period of 30 days. Ultimately, vide the impugned order dated 24.10.2016 (Annexure P-1), 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 for fulfilling the requirements of period 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 vehemently opposes 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 is 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. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It has been held by this Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 550 as under:

3.“As per order dated 04.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat the case has been adjourned for 06.03.2013 for issuing of proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.against petitioner Ashok Kumar. The order dated 06.03.2013, shows that proclamation issued against Ashok Kumar received back duly executed. Statement of Serving Constable was also recorded. Period of 30 day