IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12053-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 05.03.2025 Rahul Kundra @ Chintu and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, for quashing of order dated 18.07.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana in FIR No.13 dated 16.02.2024 registered under Sections 307, 323, 341, 506, 148, 149 IPC (Sections 325, 326 IPC added later on) at Police Station Division No.2, District Ludhiana, vide which the petitioners were declared as proclaimed offenders.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier petitioner No.2 approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, for anticipatory bail, by providing all necessary details of his innocence, however, his bail application was dismissed on two occasions, in a mechanical manner on 24.04.2024 (Annexure P-2) and 07.08.2024 (Annexure P-6), respectively and during the interregnum period, a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued and executed on 15.06.2024, resulting in both the petitioners being declared as proclaimed offenders on 18.07.2024 (Annexure P-5). Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order dated 18.07.2024, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant petition.

3. Additionally, all parties involved in the case resolved their dispute amicably with the intervention of the relatives and a compromise deed was executed on 13.05.2024 (Annexure P-3), wherein the complainant party agreed not to pursue the FIR (supra).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits 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 petitioners submits that both the petitioners undertake to appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing. 5. Notice of motion.

6. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent – State and supports the order passed by the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioners have not caused appearance before the learned trial Court intentionally and deliberately and, therefore, having left with no other option, the proclamation was issued to secure their presence.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court issued proclamation without recording reasons of its belief that the petitioners have absconded or are concealing themselves. 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 82 of Cr.P.C. and non-recording of the satisfaction itself makes such order suffering from incurable illegality.

10. The sole purpose of issuance of non-bailable warrants or issuance of proclamation is to secure presence of the accused before the trial Court. The petitioners in the present case have themselves come forward and have undertaken to app