IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 25.08.2025 Manoj Kumar ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Gurminder S. Salana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 582 of BNS, 2023, seeking quashing of order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-9), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Samrala in case CIS No. CHI- 145/2016 titled as State vs. Manoj Kumar Jha in FIR No.51 dated 05.03.2015 registered under Sections 419, 420, 506 of IPC at Police Station Samrala, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender.

2. While assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender is not sustainable and is liable to be set-aside. It has been further iterated that the Court below, in blatant violation of the provisions of the Cr.P.C., 1973 straightway proceeded to issue non-bailable warrants. It is further argued that no effective steps were taken in the case to serve the petitioner with warrants before issuance of proclamation against him. It has been further iterated that the impugned order has been passed based on fabricated and false reports. It is respectfully submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner was neither personally served with any notice nor was any process properly executed or communicated to him. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It has been argued that the inability of the petitioner to join the proceedings was not deliberate. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law and is, therefore, liable to be set-aside. Furthermore, the Court below, while passing the impugned order, has failed to adopt the procedure envisaged under the law and thereby vitiated the entire process. Hence, the impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender is unsustainable and deserves to be set-

aside.

3. Learned State counsel has opposed the claim of the petitioner seeking quashing of the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender in the case. While refuting the case of the petitioner, detailed arguments concerning the merits of the case were made and it is argued that the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious and heinous. Referring to the short reply filed by way of affidavit of Tarlochan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samrala, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana, has submitted that the proclamation order was passed strictly in accordance with law as the petitioner, despite having full knowledge of the trial proceedings willfully evaded his appearance before the Court. According to him, the conduct of the petitioner shows a deliberate attempt to obstruct the course of justice. Furthermore, it has been submitted by the learned State counsel that the petitioner was served thorough non-bailable warrants but he did not appear which compelled the Court below to declare him proclaimed person vide impugned order. Instead of surrendering before the competent Court, the petitioner has chosen to file the instant petitioner which clearly reflects his conduct that he was fully aware of the proceedings and the coercive measures undertaken by the Court below to secure his presence. Moreover, it has been stated that the learned Court below followed the procedure as laid-down under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in letter and spirit and no discrepancy whatsoever is forthcoming from the records of the case.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully perused the record of the case.

5. The facts of the present case narrate a very sordid course of procedure,