IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Harvinder Singh ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab ….Respondent Date of Decision: January 20, 2026 Date of Uploading: January 21, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Cr. P.C., 1973, inter alia seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure P-13) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khadur Sahib, District Tarn Taran, whereby, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person, in a case arising out of FIR No.162 dated 01.09.2019, under Sections 279, 304-A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), registered at Police Station Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran 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 petitioner was released on bail by the concerned police there being bailable offences. Learned counsel has further iterated that without properly investigating into the matter, the challan/ final report was presented against the petitioner, in his absence, before the Court below, on 01.03.2023 (Annexure P-2) and notice was issued to the petitioner for 05.05.2023. Learned counsel argued that thereafter, on many dates, the notice(s)/ bailable/ non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner, but not even a single notice served upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further argued that subsequently, on 21.10.2024, the Court below directly proceeded to issue proclamation under Section 82 of Cr. P.C. instead of the fact that no notice/ bailable/ non-bailable warrants were served/ executed upon the petitioner. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 12.12.2024, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person.

Learned counsel iterated that the Court below relied upon a report (Exhibit P-3) of the serving police official, in which, he stated that he had gone to the residence of the petitioner, along with one Satnam Singh, Chowkidar of Fatehabad, and found that the house of the petitioner was locked. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has appended an affidavit dated 23.08.2025 (Annexure P-14/T) of said Satnam Singh, Chowkidar, wherein he clearly stated that none had approached him to report or serve the proclamation, munadi or any of the Court order, summons etc. in respect of FIR in question. Learned counsel has iterated that, thus, the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person 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. Status report filed by way of an affidavit dated 11.01.2026 has already been filed. Raising submissions in tandem with the said status report, 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 repeated warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner, but the petitioner had deliberately and intentionally avoided the process of l