IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-65073-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.12.2025 MOHINDER PARTAP SINGH ......... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. G.S. Madaan, Advocate with Mr. A.S. Johal, Advocate and Ms. Ishiqa Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)

CRM-47881-2025 The applicant-petitioner through instant application under Section 151 CPC is seeking permission to place on record Annexure P-8, P-9 and Annexure P-10.

Allowed as prayed for.

Annexure P-8, P-9 and Annexure P-10 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.

1. Present petition has been instituted under Section 528 of BNNS, 2023 for quashing order dated 28.05.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Jalandhar whereby the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed person in case bearing NACT-3354- 2023 dated 06.07.2023 titled as ‘Jatinder Singh Vs. Mohinder Partap Singh etc.’ along with other consequential proceedings arising from the same.

2. Both 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 person. On perusal of the paper book, it is revealed that during the proceedings of case NACT-3354-2023 dated 06.07.2023 as afore-said, warrants of arrest against petitioner Mohinder Partap Singh were directed to be issued initially vide order dated 02.11.2023 and the petitioner surrendered on 06.11.2023. Thereafter, on 20.12.2023, upon application for exempting the petitioner from furnishing regular bail bonds and surety bonds, one more opportunity was granted for furnishing surety bonds and the case was adjourned for serving notice of accusation. On subsequent dates of hearing, application for exemption from personal appearance was filed on behalf of the petitioner which was allowed for that date only. Thereafter, warrant of arrest against the petitioner was again directed to be issued vide order dated 26.02.2024 for 21.03.2024. On 21.03.2024, it was observed that the petitioner is absconding or has concealed himself to avoid the execution of warrants and his presence cannot be secured through warrants and proclamation was ordered to be issued for 28.05.2024 and Executing Constable was directed to appear for statement on 28.05.2024. On 28.05.2024, proclamation against petitioner was received back duly effected and report and statement of serving Constable was recorded. On the same date, petitioner was declared proclaimed person. Learned counsel lastly contended that the dispute was mediated by the councilors and settlement dated 31.03.2024 was entered by the petitioner. As per the settlement, the complainant was to withdraw the case and petitioner was obligated to make payments. Learned counsel contended that it is due to this reason that petitioner was unaware that he was declared proclaimed person.

4. Learned counsel further contended that as per order dated 28.05.2024, proclamation issued against accused was received back executed and statement of serving constable was recorded in which he stated that the accused was not present at the house and thereafter, he had pasted one copy of the proclamation at the given address, one copy at a conspicuous place in Mohalla and one copy at the notice Board of the Court. Moreover, 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 Punj