IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Tek Chand ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ….Respondents Date of Decision: January 16, 2026 Date of Uploading: January 16, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

None for respondent No.2.

**********

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., 1973, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 28.10.2016 (Annexure P- 5) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, whereby, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender, in a case arising out of FIR No.23 dated 27.04.2016, under Sections 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), registered at Police Station Behram, District SBS Nagar, as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It has been further contended that the Court below has failed to follow due process prescribed under Section 82 of Cr. P.C. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the present FIR. Learned counsel has argued that the alleged incident pertains to the year 2013 whereas the FIR was registered after a delay of three years i.e. in the year 2016. After registration of the FIR, non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner and co-accused on 04.07.2016. According to learned counsel, on 18.08.2016, the non-bailable warrants against the petitioner were not properly issued by the Ahlmad yet instead of rectifying the same or resorting to the proper procedure under Section 105-B of Cr. P.C. for service abroad, the Court below directly proceeded to issue proclamation under Section 82 of Cr. P.C. Furthermore, order dated 06.10.2016 clearly reflects that the statutory period of 30 days for execution of proclamation has not elapsed and the case was adjourned to 28.10.2016. However, no fresh proclamation was issued intimating the petitioner of a new date which is in contravention with the settled legal position that a fresh proclamation is mandatory upon adjournment. Learned counsel has emphasized that the petitioner was unaware of the FIR or any proceedings thereunder. Furthermore, the petitioner was neither served with any notice nor restrained by the investigating agency despite his regular travel in and out of India as evidenced by his passport (Annexures P-6, P-7 & P-8). It has been further submitted that no efforts were made to serve him through the Indian Embassy or by following the procedure prescribed for service upon persons residing abroad. Thus, the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender is in gross violation of law and principles of natural justice as there was no deliberate evasion or non-appearance on the part of the petitioner. On the basis of these submissions, learned counsel has prayed that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside being illegal and unjustified and hence liable to be set-

aside.

3. Short reply filed by way of an affidavit dated 03.01.2026 of Harjit Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Banga, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar has been filed, in the Court today, which is taken on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said short reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition. While refuting the case set up by the petitioner, detailed arguments were advanced on merits, contending that the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious in nature and that the investigation was conducted in a fair and proper manner. Furthermore, it has been submitted by the learned State counsel that summons were served upon the petitioner through his mother, but he did not join proceedings, w