IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

148-A CRM-M-57807-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.10.2025 Tajinder Singh Mahey @ Tajinder Mahey @ Bhinda ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. Saurav Bhatia and Mr. Navdeep S. Khokhar, Advocates for the petitioner *****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

(cid:1)(cid:2) Prayer made in the present petition filed under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the order dated 15.03.2024, Annexures P-20 and P-21 respectively in FIR No.63 dated 02.06.2020, registered under Sections 323, 324, 307, 427, 148, 149 and 188 of IPC at Police Station Sadar Banga, District SBS Nagar, whereby the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender.

2. Learned counsel submits that the FIR was registered against the petitioner on 02.06.2020 and granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 20.04.2021, Annexure P-2, whereafter, he continued to appear before the trial Court but for 18.07.2023 and his bail was cancelled and bonds were forfeited to State. In the meanwhile, he went abroad. Thereafter, on 31.08.2023, non-bailable warrants were issued against him for 02.09.2023 but the same received back with the report of his mother that he had gone abroad since one month. Consequently, vide order dated 16.12.2023, proclamation was issued against him for 20.01.2024. This fact was also apprised to the serving official by the mother of the petitioner after the proceedings of proclamation initiated against him that he went abroad, however, no steps were taken to serve him. He further submits that the matter has even otherwise been compromised vide Annexure P-23. In the meanwhile, 4 accused out of 11, stand acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 05.08.2025. The petitioner was however declared proclaimed offender vide orders dated 15.03.2024, 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 orders impugned also reveals that there is no satisfaction quoted by the learned Court and it has reason to believe that the petitioner was absconded or concealed himself and there is no immediate prospects of him being arrested. Thus the proclamation proceedings being in violation thereof are liable to be set aside, however, he 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.

3. Notice of motion.

4. At the asking of the Court, (cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:7)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:5)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:9)(cid:20)(cid:7)(cid:21) (cid:7)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:23)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:24)(cid:23)ti(cid:22)(cid:11) 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, while Mr. Kuljinder Singh Billing, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and affirms the factum of compromise and has no objection, in case, the petitioner granted an opportunity to appear before the trial Court.

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