IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 12.09.2025 Bhupinder Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Jagjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG Punjab.

Mr. Atinderpal Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of order dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure P-6), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Amritsar in case CHI/1352/2019 titled as State of Punjab vs. Kulwinder Singh Etc. in FIR No.0049 dated 07.05.2017 registered under Sections 341, 324, 323, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (offences under Sections 326 and 201 of IPC added later on) at Police Station Kathu Nangal, District Amritsar Rural, whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed person, as well as the other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. While assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person is not sustainable and is liable to be set-aside. It has been further iterated that the Court below, blatantly violating provisions of Cr.P.C., 1973 straightway proceeded to issue non-bailable warrants despite the fact that petitioner was not residing in India at that time. 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 ever 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. Moreover, once the Court below was made aware of the foreign residence of the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the concerned authority to effect service upon the petitioner at his overseas address, in accordance with the procedure mandated under the law. Furthermore, the Court below, while passing the impugned order, has failed to adopt the procedure envisaged under the law thereby vitiating the entire process. Hence, the impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person 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 proclaimed person 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 Dharminder Kalyan, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-division Majitha Amritsar (Rural), learned State counsel has submitted that the Police has conducted fair and proper investigation and after completion of the same, final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., 1973 was presented before the competent Court of jurisdiction. Furthermore, it has been submitted by the learned State counsel that the petitioner was served through 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 petition which clearly reflects his conduct that he was fully aware of the proceedings and the coercive measures undertaken by the Court be