IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-11234-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 28.02.2025 Harbhajan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Suneet Pal Singh Aulakh, Advocate for the petitioner.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for quashing of order dated 23.05.2024, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Samrala in case titled as Swarandeep Singh vs. Harbhajan Singh etc. arising out complaint bearing No. NIACT/53/2020, filed under Section 138 of the N. I. Act, 1881, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this complaint. On appearance before the Court, the petitioner was granted concession of bail and he was regularly appearing before the Court concerned but on 22.12.2023, he could not appear before the Court, due to which, his bail had been cancelled. Since the petitioner was not aware about the subsequent dates, he could not appear before the Court and had been declared a proclaimed person by passing the impugned order. It is argued that the petitioner was never served with the proclamation or warrants issued by the trial Court. More so, the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person without following the proper procedure prescribed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner is an old age person and is ready to join the proceedings before the learned trial Court. Hence, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and have also gone through the material placed on record.

4. On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed by the trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed person, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 23.05.2024 suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

5. There are catena of judgments of different High Courts discussing the requirements necessary for issuance and publication of proclamation against an absconder under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and for declaring him as a proclaimed person/offender. These requirements have been discussed from time to time in Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561, Bishundayal Mahton and others Vs. Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366, Devender Singh Negi Vs. State of U.P. : 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783, Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826, Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339, Dilbagh Singh Vs. State of Punjab : (P&H) 2015 (8) R.C.R. (criminal) 166, Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 550, Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368, Birad Dan Vs. State : 1958 CriLJ 965, Negi alias Debu Vs. State of U.P. and another, 1994 Cri LJ 1783 and Pal Singh Vs. The State : 1955 CriLJ 318.

6. After going through the material placed on record as well as the copies of zimini orders passed by the trial Court, it is revealed that on 17.02.2024, since the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were received back unserved, the trial Court had ordered for issuance of proclamation against him for 20.04.2024. On 20.04.2024, the proclamation was received executed. However, the case was adjourned to 23.05.2024 as the mandatory period of 30 days had not elapsed. A perusal of the statement of the serving police official reveals that the proclamation was executed on 27.03.2024, which m