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

Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, AAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of order dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed person in case FIR No.153 dated 01.08.2017 registered under Sections 323, 324, 452, 427, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Civil Line Batala, District Batala.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. During investigation, the petitioner was found innocent and was accordingly placed in Column No.2 while submitting challan before the competent Court. Thereafter, on an application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the petitioner was summoned as an additional accused vide order dated

06.07.2023. However, prior to the passing of the said summoning order, the petitioner has already travelled abroad on 15.02.2023 and remained there till 07.07.2025 which fact is duly substantiated by his passport. According to learned counsel, the summoning order was passed in the absence of the petitioner and no effective steps were taken by the prosecution or the Court to serve him abroad. Thus, the subsequent order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person is in gross violation of law and principles of natural justice as there was no deliberate evasion or non-appearance on the part of the petitioner. It has been further submitted that since the petitioner was already abroad prior to the issuance of summons and remained there throughout the relevant period, the impugned proclamation order is liable to be set-aside being illegal and unjustified and is, therefore, liable to be set-

aside.

3. Referring to the short reply filed by way of an affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division City Batala, Police District Batala, 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. Furthermore, it has been submitted by the learned State counsel that the petitioner was served thorough 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 chose 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 below to secure his presence. Moreover, it has been stated that the learned Court below followed the procedure as laid-down under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in letter and spirit and no discrepancy whatsoever is forthcoming from the records of the case. 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is meticulously adhered to. It is trite law that the provisions of Section 82 are mandatory in nature, and any non-compliance thereof vitiates the entire proceedings. It is