IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.10.2025 Sardool Masih ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of order dated 01.10.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender in case FIR No.0062 dated 27.08.2017 registered under Sections 323, 341, 506, 427, 148, 149 of IPC at Police Station Kahnuwan, District Gurdaspur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the Court below has already decided the case wherein all the co-accused have been released on probation vide order dated 10.08.2023 as the offence involved were all bailable in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further iterated that the impugned order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender is patently illegal and unsustainable as the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. has not been adhered to. Learned counsel has further submitted that the written proclamation issued did not allow a minimum period of 30 days from the date of publication for the petitioner to appear before the Court. Furthermore, petitioner is a poor and hardworking individual and on account of unfortunate mishap in the house of petitioner, he was unable to arrange an advocate which led to the initiation of proceedings against him. According to learned counsel, the petitioner was never informed about the proclamation proceedings and has been regularly appearing before the trial Court prior to the issuance of the proceedings. The absence of the petitioner before the Court below was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to unawareness of the legal consequences. 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.

3. Referring to the short reply filed by way of an affidavit of Kulwant Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Rural, District Gurdaspur, on behalf of the State of Punjab, learned State counsel has reiterated the submissions made therein and opposed the present petition. While refuting the case set up by the petitioner, detailed arguments were advanced on merits, contending that the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious in nature and that the investigation was conducted in a fair and proper manner. It is submitted that after the investigation, the report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and co-accused was presented before the competent Court on 16.07.2018 and charge was framed on 20.10.2018. During the course of trial, the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender on 01.10.2022. It has further been pointed out that the learned Court below scrupulously adhered to the procedure prescribed under Section 82(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and no infirmity or irregularity is discernible from the record. Despite being granted the concession of bail, the petitioner willfully chose not to appear before the trial Court. Consequently, after adopting due process, the Court was constrained to declare him a proclaimed person. Learned State counsel has, therefore, contended that the conduct of the petitioner clearly establishes his deliberate defiance of the judicial process and misuse of the concession of bail. Accordingly, dismissal of the instant petition has been prayed for.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully perused the record of the case.

5. The law is well settled that no person can be declared a proclaimed offender/person unless the procedure prescribed under Section 82(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is meticulously adhered to. It is trite law that the pro