IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37816-2025 Date of decision: 23.09.2025 PURAN SINGH ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Gangvir Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the impugned order dated 16.12.2023 (Annexure P-8), whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Samrala, District Ludhiana has declared the petitioner as a proclaimed person.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that DDR No.0018 dated 15.03.2020 u/s 323, 324, 201 and 34 IPC was registered at P.S. Machiwara, District Khanna in case FIR bearing No.0026 dated 15.02.2020 under Sections 323, 324 and 34 IPC at P.S. Machiwara, District Khanna.

3. He further argued that petitioner was never served with any notice/warrant. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of statement of serving official. Whereas as per Annexure P-7, statement of ASI, it is amply clear that he never read the proclamation in public and as such requirements of section 82 Cr.P.C. (section 84 BNSS) were not complied with. He further submits that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing. Hence, he prays for quashing of the said order.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and supports the impugned order, contending that the petitioner deliberately avoided appearance, leaving the trial Court with no option but to issue proclamation to secure his presence.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The criminal justice system, though permitting curtailment of personal liberty, mandates that such deprivation must strictly conform to the procedure established by law. The said procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

8. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-41715-2021 titled "Anita Sharma v. State of Punjab ", date of decision 26.03.2021 has summarized the essential requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. as under:-

2. "(i) Prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court is sine qua non for issuance and publication of the proclamation and the Court has to first issue warrant of arrest against the person concerned. (See Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi: 2008 Crl. J. 2561).

3. (ii) There must be a report before the Court that the person against whom warrant was issued had absconded or had been concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest could not be executed against him. However, the Court is not bound to take evidence in this regard before issuing a Proclamation under Section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C.. (See Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi:2008Crl. J. 2561).

4. (iii) The Court cannot issue the Proclamation as a matter of course because the Police is asking for it. The Court must be prima facie satisfied that the person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence. (See Bishundayal Mahton and others v. Emperor: AIR 1943 Patna 366 and Devender Singh Negi v. State of U.P.: 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783).

5. (iv) The requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the proclamation requiring such person to appear on such date at the specified place.

6. Such date must not be less than 30 clear days from the date of issuance an publication of the proclamation. (See GurappaGugal and others v. State of Mysore 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali v. State of Haryna: 2020(2) RCR (Criminal)

339).

7. (v) Where the period between issuance and publication of the proclamation and the specified date of hearing is less than thirty days, the accused cannot be declared a proclaimed person/offender and the proclamation has to be issued and published again. (See Dilbagh Singh v. State of Punjab (P&II): 201