IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

141 CRM-M-68823-2025 Date of Decision : 13.01.2026 HARDEEP SINGH ALIAS LADDA ...Petitioner VERSUS JASWANT SINGH AND ANR ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Mr. Labhan Paul Garg, Advocate for Mr. B.S Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL)

1. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 22.03.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Zira in Criminal Complaint bearing COMI No.12 dated 27.02.2015 titled ‘Jaswant Singh Vs. Buta Singh and others’, vide which petitioner was declared as “Proclaimed Person”.

2. Relevant facts as can be inferred from the documents on record are noticed hereinbelow:-

Criminal Complaint bearing COMI No.12/2015 titled ‘Jaswant Singh Vs. Buta Singh and others’ was registered against petitioner and others for commission of offences punishable u/s 452, 326, 506, 324, 148, 149 of IPC. After leading the preliminary evidence, petitioner and others were summoned by the then learned JMIC in terms of summoning order dated 15.10.2016 (copy of the order not attached, date inferred from the copy of judgment dated 26.10.2022, vide which the other accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them).

Perusal of the case file further reveals that petitioner, who was summoned in 2016, did not appear in the Court. On 05.02.2018, summons of petitioner were received back with the report that he has gone out of country (copy annexed as Annexure P-2). Based on the said report, the then learned Magistrate passed the following order:-

“An application for seeking exemption the presence of accused Gora alias Gursharan Singh is allowed for today only.

Summons of accused Ladda received back unserved with the report that he has gone out of country. This Court is satisfied that the presence of accused Ladda cannot be procured through ordinary way except by adoptive coercive measures. Therefore, the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against accused Ladda for 23.02.2018. Serving official is directed to appear before the Court for recording his statement regarding execution of proclamation.”

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was not aware of the pendency of the criminal complaint as he was not present in the country. In fact he had left for Dubai on 20.09.2017, in support of his submission, learned counsel has placed on record a copy of passport indicating that petitioner had left for Dubai on 20.09.2017 and had returned on 21.10.2025.

The second leg of submission raised by learned counsel is that learned Magistrate erred in initiating Proclamation Proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. In the factual scenario of the case, when the report had been received that petitioner had left for foreign land, his presence ought to have been procured in accordance with provisions of Section 105 Cr.P.C. (Section 110 BNSS).

The third leg of submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner for taking lenient view in favour of the petitioner is that co-accused have since been acquitted by the learned trial Magistrate vide judgment dated

26.10.2022 (Annexure P-5).

In the light of the aforesaid submissions learned counsel prays for setting aside order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the learned trial Magistrate. Learned counsel assures that petitioner further undertakes to surrender before the Court concerned and move an application for grant of bail. His only limited prayer is that the learned trial Court be directed to decide the bail application expeditiously.

4. Heard. Before proceeding further, let us carefully go through Section

105 Cr.P.C (now Section 110 BNSS), which reads as under:-

“105. Reciprocal arrangements regarding processes.

(1) Where a Court in the territories to which this Code extends (hereafter in this section referred to as the said territories) desires that (a) a summons to an accused person, or (b) a warrant for the arrest of an accused pers