IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ravi Partap Singh @ Ravi ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab ….Respondent Date of decision: January 12, 2026 Date of Uploading: January 12, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Ranjodh Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional AG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 03.05.2025 (Annexure P- 6) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sri Muktsar Sahib, whereby, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender, in a case arising out of FIR No.32dated 03.03.2018, under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) (Sections 467, 468 & 471 of IPC added later on), registered at Police Station City Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, 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. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner was already granted concession of regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 27.02.2019 (Annexure P-4) and had been appearing regularly before the trial Court. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner was suffering from Thigh Tuberculosis and had moved an application dated 04.06.2024 seeking exemption, which was allowed by the trial Court and the matter was adjourned to 12.07.2024. Learned counsel has further iterated that apart from suffering from Thigh Tuberculosis, the petitioner is aged about 44 years and has one rod inserted into his leg, which makes difficult for him to travel to Sri Muktsar Sahib (place of trial Court) from Tarn Taran (place of residence) at a distance of about 150 kilometers onside; 300 kilometers both sides. Learned counsel has argued that due to his continued ailment, the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court on 12.07.2024 and thereafter, on subsequent dates; though he had asked his counsel before the trial Court to move exemption applications, but the same was not done so. Learned counsel has urged that the matter had already been settled between the parties and copy of affidavit dated 16.11.2018, of the complainant, is appended as Annexure P-7 with the petition in hand. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law and is, therefore, liable to be set-aside. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order has been passed without properly scrutinizing or verifying the authenticity of the report submitted by the serving official. Consequently, the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person (wrongly written as proclaimed offender in the impugned order) is unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.

3. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of an affidavit dated 11.11.2025, which is already on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel opposed the present petition. While refuting the case set up by the petitioner, detailed arguments were advanced on merits, contending that despite issuance of notices, while adopting lenient view by the trial Court, the petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court and, thus, bail/ surety bonds of the petitioner were forfeited and non-bailable warrants were issued against him. Learned State counsel has further argued that still the trial Court has rightly issued proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. against the petitioner, but the petitioner deliberately avoided his appearance before it. Consequently, the petitioner has been rightly declared as proclaimed person, vide impugned order. It has further bee