IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

145 CRM-M-50211-2025 (O & M)

Date of decision: 08.09.2025 ANIL KUMAR SONI ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. M.S.Bajwa, DAG, Punjab.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, for quashing of order dated 10.07.2025, Annexure P-1, passed by learned SDJM, Nabha, District Patiala, in FIR No.274 dated 25.12.2021, registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, at Police Station Kotwali, Nabha, whereby the petitioner has been declared proclaimed person.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner was implicated in the aforesaid FIR on 25.12.2021 and was granted anticipatory bail on 08.12.2022, Annexure P-3. Thereafter, challan was presented and he continued to appear regularly before the trial Court, but on 22.11.2024, due to ill-health, he could not appear, following which his bail was cancelled and non-bailable warrant was issued for 07.01.2025. Thereafter on 19.04.2025, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued for 06.05.2025 and statement of the Executing Constable was recorded on 05.05.2025 wherein he stated that on the even date, the proclamation was affixed at his house, since the petitioner was not found there, and thereafter, vide order dated 10.07.2025, he was declared proclaimed person. The procedure mandated under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had not been followed, as the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender without affording him the pre-requisite time period of 30 days to appear before the trial Court, for which reference is made to order dated 06.05.2025 wherein the case was adjourned to 10.07.2025, since the mandatory period of 30 days had not elapsed. He is ready and willing to join the proceedings on or before the next date of hearing which is 18.09.2024 and prays that one last opportunity may be granted to him to surrender before the trial Court. To buttress the submissions, reliance is placed upon judgments in the cases of CRM-M-29878-2022, Sardar Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and another, decided on 30.08.2022, Uttam Sharma vs. State of Punjab and another, CRM-M-31481-2021, dated 29.09.2021 and Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another, CRM-M-13638-2013, decided on 05.08.2013.

3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the order passed against the petitioner is legal and valid on account of the fact that he had absented from the proceedings before the trial Court without any just cause.

4. Heard

5. It is apposite to refer to the provisions of Section 82 (1)

Cr.P.C. which reads thus:-

“82. Proclamation for person absconding. - (1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.

(2) xx xx xx xx (3) xx xx xx xx.”

6. In the present case, proclamation was issued on 19.04.2025 and thereafter, affixation of the notice was on 05.05.2025, whereby he was directed to appear before the Court on 06.05.2017. Since, the mandatory period of 30 days to appear before the Court had not elapsed, the case stood adjourned to 10.07.2025, for the period to be completed, which is in teeth of the law laid down in that regard. A gainful reference can be made to the judgment in Ashok Kumar (supra), relevant para of which reads thus:

“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 the mandatory period of 30 days to appear before the Court. The mere fact that the Court