139-II IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-71687-2025 Date of Decision: 12.01.2026 BHUPINDER KAUR ......... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Hitesh Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gorav Kathuria, DAG Punjab.

****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been instituted under Section 528 of BNNS, 2023 for quashing order dated 12.09.2022 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, District Barnala whereby the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed person in case bearing FIR No.25 (Annexure P-1) dated 17.04.2021, under Section 406 and 34 of IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station Bhahadur, District Barnala along with other consequential proceedings arising from the same.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State counsel and have gone through the material collected by the police during investigation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has been wrongly declared as a proclaimed person. She never received any summons/warrants from the Trial Court and serious efforts were not made by the Trial Court to secure her presence. Learned counsel contended that non-bailable warrants against the petitioner-accused issued for 06.07.2022 were received back unserved with the report that the accused does not reside at the given address. On 06.07.2022, proclamation was ordered to be issued for 22.08.2022. On 22.08.2022, proclamation was received back effected but mandatory period of 30 days had not elapsed and as such, the case was adjourned to 12.09.2022 for recording the statement of Serving Constable and awaiting appearance of the accused. On 12.09.2022, the statement of Serving Constable was recorded and the petitioner accused was declared a proclaimed person. Learned counsel contended that after marriage, petitioner went to Canada on 18.09.2020 and since then, she is residing there and as such she has not willfully evaded the proceedings. Learned counsel next contended that the order issuing proclamation is silent about the conditions mentioned in Section 82 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, no proclamation had been issued against the accused for 12.09.2022 and as such, she did not have any knowledge that she was required to appear before the Court on 12.09.2022 and impugned order dated 12.09.2022, vide which she has been declared Proclaimed Person is thus illegal and nonest and is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel further contended that as per order dated 22.08.2022, proclamation issued against accused was received back executed and on 12.09.2022, 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 the bus stand of the village of the accused and one copy at the notice Board of the Court. 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 her non-bailable warrants were issued and thereafter, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be issued and s