IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH Dilmick Lamba ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab ….Respondent Date of decision: December 19, 2025 Date of Uploading: December 19, 2025 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate and Ms. Tamanna Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr. P.C.’), seeking setting aside/ quashing of the impugned order dated 18.11.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, whereby, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person/ absconder, in the trial arising out of FIR No.15 dated 23.01.2014, under Sections 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), registered at Police Station Phase-1, SAS Nagar as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. It is argued that in relation to the FIR in question, the petitioner was never ever called for any inquiry or investigation, at any moment of time, by the police despite the fact that the petitioner is residing in the same address as mentioned in the FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that there are grave violations of mandatory provisions as contained in Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. inasmuch as the petitioner was never informed or tried to be contacted on the address mentioned in the FIR in question; publication was not done in a conspicuous place; no report was prepared or recorded qua service of summons/ bailable/ non-bailable warrants issued in the name of the petitioner; nothing was inquired from the neighbourhood of the petitioner and it was not published in the newspaper regarding declaration of the petitioner as proclaimed person. It is further contended that on 18.11.2016, while relying upon an false report of service, the learned Court below declared the petitioner as proclaimed person/ absconder. Learned counsel has further iterated that after gaining knowledge about pendency of proceedings in respect to FIR in question as also said proclamation order, the petitioner preferred an application before the concerned Court seeking bail and vide order dated 03.07.2023 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner was granted concession of interim bail. Learned counsel has further argued that due to non-communication of the said order to the petitioner, he could not join investigation and, thus, vide order dated 12.07.2023 (Annexure P-4), said application of the petitioner was dismissed, which on untenable and unsustainable grounds.

Learned counsel argues that without complying with the mandatory requirements of Sections 82 and 83 Cr. P.C., the learned Court below, vide impugned order dated 18.11.2016, declared the petitioner a proclaimed person/ absconder. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable, having been passed in patent violation of the statutory mandate, and is therefore liable to be set aside. Consequently, the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person/

absconder is unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.

3. Learned State counsel, while referring to the short reply filed by way of an affidavit dated 31.10.2023, already on record, has opposed the present petition. While refuting the case set up by the petitioner, detailed arguments have been advanced on merits, contending that during investigation, raids were conducted at the house of the petitioner as well as other suspected placed, however, the petitioner could not be arrested as he was evading his arrest. Accordingly, proceedings under Section 82 of t