IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

273 CRM-M-11321-2023 (O&M)

DECIDED ON: 30.10.2025 RAJPAL .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PRATAP SINGH Present: Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. N.P. Chandel, AAG, Haryana.

SURYA PRATAP SINGH, J (ORAL)

1. The order dated 06.12.2017 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class Rewari, hereinafter being referred to as “trial Court” is under challenge in the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to as “CrPC” only.

2. By virtue of abovementioned order, the learned trial Court while holding a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person, which led to FIR No.388 dated 30.07.2021 under Section

174-A of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Model Town, Rewari.

3. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and during the course of abovementioned trial, when he failed to appear before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court arrived at a conclusion that through ordinary process, presence of the petitioner in the Court cannot be procured. As such, the learned trial Court issued proclamation against the petitioner, and when the abovementioned proclamation was affixed, the learned trial Court, by virtue of impugned order, declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person.

4. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), has not been complied with. In this regard, it has been specifically alleged by the petitioner that the proclamation was not publicly read, as prescribed under the law.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned trial Court has committed an error when without following due process, it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the basic steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case, the executing Constable had not publicly read the proclamation at a public place, and thus, the entire procedure adopted by the learned trial Court is rendered defective.

7. Per contra, the learned State Counsel has argued that it is an admitted fact in the present case that the petitioner had not been appearing before the learned trial Court in the trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. As per learned State Counsel, when the petitioner himself was guilty of non-appearance before the Court, he cannot take the advantage of any technical defect in the procedure adopted by the learned trial Court.

8. The record has been perused carefully.

9. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has placed on record a translated copy of the statement of the Executing Constable recorded by the learned trial Court, which was the foundation of declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. The statement of the Executing Constable, namely HC Bhudev, dated 06.12.2017 reads as under:-

“Stated that on dated 27.10.2017 with summons/notice gone to house of accused Rajpal son of Kanwar Singh resident of Jakhopur, who was not present at home. The respectable persons of village stated that he was residing somewhere outside, whose address was not. Copy of notice was pasted at the house of petitioner in presence of respectable persons and another notice was pasted at the bus-stand of village and one notice was pasted in the Rewari Court premises and one notic