IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-67163-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 02.12.2025 DEEPAK KUMAR ..... PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER .......RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab.

Ms. Saksham Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.

*****

1. Deepak Kumar, accused in criminal case arising out of FIR No.237 dated 07.11.2020 under Sections 406, 498-A, 323, 324, 506 and 34 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Adampur, District Jalandhar Rural, has filed this petition under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing order dated 20.10.2023 of learned JMIC, Jalandhar, declaring him “proclaimed person”.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that marriage of petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 23.11.2017 and out of the wedlock, a female child was born on 28.09.2018. Marital discord led to registration of FIR. He further submits that petitioner could not join investigation as he was in Italy at the time of registration of the FIR and at the time he was declared proclaimed person. Copy of passport placed on record proved that he was in Italy at the relevant time. Impugned order dated 20.10.2023 declaring the petitioner, proclaimed person was not in consonance with law as the proclamation was not published at the place where petitioner was ordinarily residing. The proclamation was sent at his local address, though it was well within the knowledge of the executing official and Court that petitioner was abroad. No effort was made to serve petitioner in Italy through diplomatic process. Moreover, the dispute had been resolved amicably between petitioner and respondent No.2. Both parties filed joint petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, impugned order dated 20.10.2023 of learned JMIC, Jalandhar deserved to be quashed.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.1-State. Ms. Saksham Sharma, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and files her vakalatnama which is taken on record.

5. Learned State counsel submits that petitioner was proclaimed person and had not even joined investigation. Petitioner were rightly declared proclaimed person after following due process, on the basis of address given.

6. Section 82 Cr.P.C. which provides for publication of proclamation against a person absconding is reproduced hereunder for the facility of reference:-

—(1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.

(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:-

(i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides;

(b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village;

(c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house;

(ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.

(3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the manner specified in clause (i) of sub- section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day. 50 1 [(4) Where a proclamation published under sub-section (1) is in respect of