In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Reserved On: 28.10.2025 Pronounced On: 30.10.2025 Yadwinder Singh alias Yaddu ... Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab and Others ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.

Present: Mr. Rajan Singh Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. I.P.S.Sabharwal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent No.1.

Mr. Suraj Kaundal, Advocate for the respondents No.2 to 4.

Surya Partap Singh, J.

1. The order dated 27.03.2018 (Annexure P4) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Feorzepur, hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”, is under challenge in the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The quashing of above-mentioned order, whereby the petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender in the case pertaining to FIR No. 67 dated 26.05.2016, under Section 382 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur, has been sought on the ground that the mandatory provisions enshrined under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for declaring the petitioner to be proclaimed offender has not been followed

2025.11.03 10:06 in the present case.

3. Briefly stating the fact emerging from the record are that for the commission of offence punishable under Section 382 IPC, the above- mentioned FIR was lodged against the petitioner and two other persons. According to petitioner, after presentation of challan, he had been regularly appearing before the learned trial Court, and that in the year 2018, to earn his livelihood, he went abroad and could not return back to India due to circumstance beyond his control. According to petitioner, due to non- appearance his bail was cancelled and the warrants of arrest was issued. The petitioner has further alleged that subsequently, the learned trial Court issued proclamation against the petitioner on 07.02.2018 and declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender.

4. Heard.

5. It has been alleged by the petitioner that he was never served either with warrants of arrest, and that the proclamation was not made in accordance with law, and therefore, he was not aware of the proclamation. The petitioner in support of his stand has referred to the principles of law laid down by this Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar Arora and Others v. State of Haryana and Another 2023(2) Law Herald 1231; Rajesh Kumar alias Billa v. State of Punjab 2019(3) RCR (Criminal) 351; and Sudo Mandal alias Diwarak Mandal v. State of Punjab 2011(2) RCR (Criminal)

453

6. In addition to above, it has been alleged by the petitioner that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, while declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

2025.11.03 10:06

7. It has been contended on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, the impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the necessary conditions enshrined under Section 82 Cr.P.C., for declaring the petitioner to be proclaimed offender, have not been complied with, and therefore, in view of the principles of law laid down in the case of Mukesh Kumar (supra), Rajesh Kumar alias Billa (supra) and Sudo Mandal alias Diwarak Mandal (supra), the above-mentioned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

8. Per contra, the learned State counsel has argued that in the present case, the petitioner is a person, who right from the very beginning, was aware of the pendency of criminal proceedings against him, and that the petitioner is the person, who, violated the condition of bail with impunity, and took the law in his own hands and went abroad without caring for the criminal proceedings pending against him. According to learned State counsel, the petitioner, right from the very beginning, is aware of the fact that criminal proceedings are going on against him, and therefore, he is not entitled to take a plea that he was not aware of the proceedings whereby he