IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

125 CRM-M-1768-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 13.10.2025 Ravinderpal Singh @ Kuldeep Singh Dhaliwal ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Anr ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Charanjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. M.S. Bajwa, DAG Punjab.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer made in the present petition filed under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is for setting aside/quashing impugned order dated 28.02.2012 passed by learned JMIC, Jagroan, vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender (Annexure P-7) as well as consequential of FIR No.52 dated 01.05.2008, under Sections 324, 34 and Section 326 (later on added), registered at Police Station Rajkot, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1).

2. Learned counsel on instructions restricts himself only to the first prayer. In the above-noted FIR, co-accused Shingara Singh was declared innocent and not challaned, Dharminder Singh @ Binda had passed away and proceeding against him stood abated, while, co-accused Lakhvinder acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 01.09.2016 (Annexure P-8). Petitioner got married in January, 2003 and in November 2003, he was blessed with a baby, whereafter, he in 2008 immigrated to Canada as his wife was a permanent resident and challan was presented in

2010. He was however declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 28.02.2012, however, without following the procedure under Sections 41, 105 and 82 Cr.P.C. A further reference is made to a Notification issued by the Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs, IS Division-II:Legal Cell New Delhi, dated the 11th Feb, 2009, laying down comprehensive guidelines in this regard of reciprocal arrangements to be made by Central Government with the Foreign Governments with regard to the service of summons/warrants/judicial processes. The Ministry of Home Affairs has entered into Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty/Agreements with 22 countries including Canada which provide for serving of documents. The petitioner was not residing in the village, thus, the said process not having been complied with in letter and spirit, there being no direction to the accused to appear in 30 days or that he does not, he would be declared proclaimed offender, the proclamation proceedings are liable to be set aside. However, the petitioner is ready and willing to surrender before the trial Court for which he seeks only one opportunity, which may even be subject to imposition of costs or any other conditions, which this Court may deem appropriate. He submits that only 2 private witnesses remain to be examined and, thus, the trial Court be directed to conclude the case in a time bound manner.

3. Notice of motion.

4. At the asking of the Court, (cid:5)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:18)(cid:12)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:12)ti(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:12)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:22)(cid:21)(cid:31) (cid:21) !"#$(cid:12)(cid:30)%#& ! on behalf of respondent-State and submits that the trial Court has rightly passed the order as the petitioner did not appear before the Court and evaded the proceedings.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. In the case of Jasbir Kaur vs. State of Punjab and another, CRM-M-25115-2022, decided on 2.6.2022, since the petitioner therein was a Non Indian Resident residing in Canada and proclamation proceedings had been initiated while she was not in India, as such, the order of proclamation was set aside.

7. Similarly, in Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, CRM-M-32011-2018, decided on 6.2.2020, this Court in the interim order dated 10.9.2018, noticed the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner relying on the photocopy of the passport (Annexure A-1) that the petitioner was not in India at the time of registration of FIR on 29.10.2009, as well as, on the day, when he was declared proclaimed offender vide order d