IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 05.03.2025 BALSHER SINGH ..... Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Narinder Lucky, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, Senior DAG, Punjab.

*****

KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 06.06.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistate First Class, Jalandhar, vide which the petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender in case FIR No.53 dated 03.10.2020, under Sections 406, 498-A and 509 IPC, registered at Police Station Women, District Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar.

2. The case of the petitioner is that abovesaid FIR was registered based on a complaint filed by the complainant, alleging that the petitioner, along with other family members, subjected the complainant to physical assault and was also responsible for causing her miscarriage.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute is matrimonial in nature and the petitioner being the brother-in-law of the complainant has been falsely implicated in the above stated FIR. He contends that the petitioner was residing in Bahrain when the present FIR was registered against him, and after the registration of the FIR, and no proper service of summons, warrants, or proclamation was ever effected at his foreign address. Despite this, non-bailable warrants were issued, which were received back unexecuted with the report that the petitioner was not residing at the given address. He has placed reliance upon the copy of order dated 09.03.2023 (Annexure P-3 Colly). Thereafter, without effecting the service of the petitioner at their foreign address, the learned trial Court has declared the petitioner as a proclaimed offender without complying with the mandatory provisions of Sections 82 and 105 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is coming back to India and is ready and willing to join the trial.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel, has submitted that the petitioner, despite the proclamation, has failed to appear before the trial Court and has been rightly declared a proclaimed offender vide the impugned order and in addition, the petitioner is evading the process of Court which is highly deprecated on his part and in view of above, he does not deserve the concession.

5. Heard the submissions made by respective learned counsels for the parties.

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 procla- mation under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. against peti- tioner 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 days had not elapsed from the date of publication. Therefore, the case was ad- journed to 13.3.2013. On that day, the petitioner was de- clared as proclaimed offender. The original record also shows that the statement of the serving official, namely, ASI Dilbag Singh was recorded on 6.3.2013, who stated that on 9.2.2013, he visited the place of residence of the accused along with proclamation. After reading publicly, the proclamation was affixed at conspicuous part of the house of the accused where he ordinarily resides. A copy of the proclamation was also affixed at conspicuous part of the Court house, which means that the publication was effected on 9.2.2013 for 6.3.2013, which shows that after the publication of the notice, the accused was not given

2025.03.06 17:21 the mandatory period of 30 days to appear before the Court. The mere fact that the Court adjourned it after the period of 30 days will not be treated as compliance of the provisions of Section 82 (1) Cr.P.C. where it is provi