S. No.134 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CRM-M-63800 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision:14.11.2025 Pritam Singh .....Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. Aman Pal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sankalp Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, DAG, Haryana.

****

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been instituted under Section 482 Cr.P.C/528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing order dated 23.04.2002 (Annexure P.1) passed by learned JMIC, Kurukshetra, whereby the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed offender in case titled ‘State Vs. Labh Singh in case FIR No.45 dated 23.05.2000 registered under Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act, 1914 at Police Station Babain, District Kurukshetra and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Upon notice, the learned State Counsel has appeared. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and material placed on the file has been perused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has been wrongly declared as a proclaimed offender. He never received any summons/

warrants from the trial Court and serious efforts were not made by the trial Court to secure his presence. On perusal of the paper book, it is revealed that during the proceedings of case FIR No.45 dated 23.05.2000 as afore-said, warrants of arrest against petitioner Pritam Singh were directed to be issued initially vide order dated 07.08.2001, and the said order was repeated on 02.01.2002 due to receipt of the warrants of arrest as unexecuted. On 26.02.2002, warrant of arrest was received back unexecuted with the report that the accused-petitioner has already absconded about 1-1/2 years ago and surety had made a statement that the accused had gone abroad and so, proclamation under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C was ordered to be issued for 23.04.2002 and serving constable was directed to come present on the next date of hearing i.e. 22.03.2002. On 22.03.2002, statement of serving constable was recorded. On 23.04.2002, the proclamation was received back effected and the accused- petitioner was declared proclaimed offender. Learned counsel contended that despite knowing that accused had gone abroad, no efforts were made to secure his presence through the Ministry of Home Affairs and no proclamation was effected on his address as he was in foreign country and only by effecting the warrants of proclamation in his village does not means that proclamation was effected and impugned order dated 23.04.2002, vide which he has been declared Proclaimed Offender is thus illegal and nonest.

4. Learned counsel further contended that as per order dated 23.04.2002, proclamation issued against accused was received back executed whereas it was effected only in his village as he was residing in abroad. However, the proclamation was not publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town where the accused resided and it was thus violation of provisions of Section 82(2) (i)(a) of Cr.P.C and on this score also, proclamation is invalid and a nullity and proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C are thus liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon 2022(1) Law Herald 219 – Rahul Dureja and another Vs. State of Punjab, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 493 – Harvinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2024(1) Law Herald 859 – Mahender Kumar Vs. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., 2024(1) Law Herald 291 – Ramandeep Singh Sangha @ Ramna Sangha Vs. State of Punjab, and 2024(2) RCR (Criminal) 5- Sukhjinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another.

5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has argued that the petitioner could not be served when his non-bailable warrants were issued and thereafter, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be issued and he was declared Proclaimed Offender. Learned State Counsel has contended that the impugned order is well re