IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 04.11.2025 Amarjit Mehmi ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Kuljinder Biling, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. Madan Lal Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of order dated 28.10.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed person in case FIR No.23 dated 27.04.2016 registered under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC at Police Station Behram, District SBS Nagar as well as all the 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.It has been argued that the Court below has failed to follow due process prescribed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. Learned counsel has argued that the alleged incident pertains to the year 2013 whereas the FIR was registered after a delay of three years i.e. in the year 2016. After registration of the FIR, non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner and co-accused on 04.07.2016. According to learned counsel, on 18.08.2016, the non-bailable warrants against the petitioner were not properly issued by the Ahlmad yet instead of rectifying the same or resorting to the proper procedure under Section 105-B of Cr.P.C. for service abroad, the Court below directly proceeded to issue proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. Furthermore, order dated 06.10.2016 clearly reflects that the statutory period of 30 days for execution of proclamation has not elapsed and the case was adjourned to 28.10.2016. However, no fresh proclamation was issued intimating the petitioner of a new date which is in contravention with the settled legal position that a fresh proclamation is mandatory upon adjournment. Learned counsel has emphasized that the petitioner was unaware of the FIR or any proceedings thereunder. Furthermore, the petitioner was neither served with any notice nor restrained by the investigating agency despite his regular travel in and out of India as evidenced by his passport (Annexures P-6 and P-7). It has been further submitted that the petitioner is a 77 year old senior citizen and no efforts were made to serve him through the India Embassy or by following the procedure prescribed for service upon persons residing abroad. Thus, the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender 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. On the basis of these submission, learned counsel has prayed that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside being illegal and unjustified and hence liable to be set-aside.

3. Referring to the short reply filed by way of an affidavit of Harjit Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Banga, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar 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 Cour