IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-56210-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.11.2025 Rajbir Singh @ Middu ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. Bikramjit Singh Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer made in the present petition filed under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the order dated 06.09.2023, Annexure P-2, whereby the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person in FIR No.25 dated 27.01.2022, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 325, 341, 427 IPC, registered at Police Station Garhi, District Jind.

2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was granted bail in the above-noted FIR and during pendency of the case, in order to earn his livelihood, he went abroad and returned on 19.07.2025, thus, he could not appear therein. He was residing abroad at the relevant time and non-bailable warrants issued by the Court, were at his local address for which, reference has been made to copy of passport to substantiate the aforesaid, appended as Annexure P-3. No effort was made to serve him as per the procedure prescribed. Consequently, on 06.09.2023, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person, however, without following the procedure under Sections 41, 105 and 82 Cr.P.C. Thus the proclamation proceedings being in violation thereof are liable to be set aside, however, he is ready and willing to surrender before the trial Court for which he seeks only one opportunity, which may even be subject to imposition of costs or any other conditions, which this Court may deem appropriate.

3. Notice of motion.

4. At the asking of the Court, Mr. B.S. Saroha, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and submits that the trial Court has rightly passed the order as the petitioner did not appear before the Court and evaded the proceedings.

5. No order prejudicial to the rights of respondent No.2 is being proposed to be passed by this Court, thus, there is no requirement of impleading him.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. In the case of Jasbir Kaur vs. State of Punjab and another, CRM- M-25115-2022, decided on 2.6.2022, since the petitioner therein was a Non Indian Resident residing in Canada and proclamation proceedings had been initiated while she was not in India, as such, the order of proclamation was set aside.

8. Similarly, in Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, CRM-M-32011-2018, decided on 6.2.2020, this Court in the interim order dated 10.9.2018, noticed the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner relying on the photocopy of the passport (Annexure A-1) that the petitioner was not in India at the time of registration of FIR on 29.10.2009, as well as, on the day, when he was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 28.4.2014 and even on the date of passing of the above order, as he was in Italy, directed him to surrender before the trial Court, upon which interim bail was ordered to be granted to him.

9. The very purpose of issuance of summons, warrants etc. is to compel and secure the presence of the accused to face trial and establish the rule of law so as to ensure finalization of the proceedings.

10. Reverting to the facts of the present case inasmuch as it was because the petitioner went abroad for earning livelihood, prior to the passing of impugned order dated 06.09.2023, and the procedure as envisaged by the Code not followed in letter and spirit, he could not be served and as such, his explanation for absence appears to be justified. However, it is incumbent upon him to join the proceedings, before the trial Court, for the culmination of the same.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, judgments referred to hereinabove, the readiness and willingness of the petitioner to surrender and join the proceedings, which was incumbent upon him for the culmination of the same, the present petition deserves to be and is allowed, in the interest