IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 30.10.2025 Sukhbir Singh @ Monu ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Gurmohan Singh Bedi, Advocate with Mr. Pawandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973, seeking quashing of order dated 10.03.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed person in case FIR No.164 dated 09.12.2006 registered under Sections 326, 452, 323, 427, 506, 148, 149 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Shri Hargobindpur, District Batala as also all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has further iterated that the proclamation proceedings are vitiated as the requirement of giving mandatory notice period of 30 days as required under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was not adhered to. According to learned counsel, the proclamation was allegedly executed on 27.12.2011 directing the petitioner to appear on 02.01.2012 thereby not granting the requisite period of 30 days. Learned counsel has further submitted that instead of issuing a fresh proclamation in compliance with the statutory mandate, the Court below subsequently adjourned the matter to 10.03.2012 without issuing any fresh proclamation for that date. It has been submitted that the declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed offender vide impugned order dated 10.03.2012 is contrary to the provisions of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. According to learned counsel, such a course of action is contrary to the settled position of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 550, wherein it has been categorically held that the proclamation must itself provide a clear notice period of not less than 30 days from the date of its publication and the defect cannot be cured by mere adjournment. Furthermore, the proclamation proceedings were initiated without first executing or attempting to execute warrants of arrest which is a sine qua non for invoking Section 82 of Cr.P.C. It has been argued that before issuing a proclamation, the Court must have a reason to believe that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrants cannot be executed, which condition is not satisfied in the present case. Learned counsel has prayed that the impugned order dated 10.03.2012 declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person are procedurally defective, contrary to Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, liable to be quashed alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

3. Referring to the short reply filed by way of an affidavit of Harish Behal, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Sri Hargobindpur, 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 during the course of trial, the petitioner could not appear before the Court below on 04.11.2011 and accordingly the bail bonds and surety bonds of the petitioner were forfeited to the State and non-bailable warrants were issued for 28.11.2011. Thereafter on 02.01.2012, the Court below recorded that the proclamation issued against the petitioner was received as duly served but he d