S. No.132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CRM-M-53086 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision:22.09.2025 Lalit Kumar .....Petitioner Vs.

Union Territory, Chandigarh and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. Risham Raag Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vaibhav Mittal, APP, UT, Chandigarh for the respondents.

****

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been instituted under Section 482 Cr.P.C/528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing order dated 18.07.2025 (Annexure P.19) passed by learned JMIC, UT, Chandigarh, whereby the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed person in case No.PCH/1985/2022 titled ‘State of UT Chandigarh Vs. Lalit Kumar etc. in case FIR No.21 dated 11.02.2022 registered under Sections 279 and 427 IPC at Police Station Mani Majra, Chandigarh and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Upon notice, the Counsel for UT, has appeared. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and material placed on the file has been perused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has been wrongly declared as a proclaimed person. He never received any summons/

warrants from the trial Court and serious efforts were not made by the trial Court to secure his presence. On perusal of the paper book, it is revealed that during the proceedings of case FIR No.32 dated 12.02.2022 as afore-said, warrants of arrest against petitioner Lalit Kumar were directed to be issued initially vide order dated 07.12.2023, and the said order was repeated on various subsequent dates due to receipt of the warrants of arrest as unexecuted. In none of the orders passed by the trial Court, it is mentioned as to what was the report on the warrants of arrest. On 09.09.2024, warrant of arrest was received back unexecuted and simply by recording satisfaction that the accused cannot be served through non bailable warrants, proclamation under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C was ordered to be issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that proclamation under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C was ordered to be issued for various dates but the same was either not issued or was not received back and lastly, the proclamation was ordered to be issued for 14.07.2025 vide order dated 01.05.2025 and serving constable was summoned to make statement on 31.05.2025. On 31.05.2025, the proclamation was received back effected and the statement of serving constable was recorded and the case was adjourned to 14.07.2025 for awaiting appearance of the accused. However, on 14.07.2025, the Presiding Officer was on leave and file was put up before Duty Magistrate and case was adjourned to 16.07.2025 for appearance of the accused on which date also, the Presiding Officer on leave and the case was again adjourned for appearance of accused to 18.07.2025. On 18.07.2025, petitioner was declared a Proclaimed Person. Learned counsel contended that no proclamation had been issued against the accused for 18.07.2025 and as such, he did not have any knowledge that he was required to appear before the Court on

18.07.2025 and impugned order dated 18.07.2025, vide which he has been declared Proclaimed Person is thus illegal and nonest.

4. Learned counsel further contended that as per order dated 31.05.2025, proclamation issued against accused was received back executed and statement of serving constable was recorded in which he stated that the accused was not present at the house and thereafter, he had pasted one copy of the proclamation at the given address and one copy at the notice Board of the Court. However, the proclamation was not publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town where the accused resided and it was thus violation of provisions of Section 82(2)(i)(a) of Cr.P.C and on this score also, proclamation is invalid and a nullity and proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C are thus liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon 2022(1)