IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CRM-M-5535-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 02.02.2026 Harvinder Singh @ Harwinder ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Bakul Garg, Advocate and Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of impugned order dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Karnal, whereby the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person in FIR No. 620 dated 04.08.2017 registered under Sections

379, 411 of IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, District Karnal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been regularly appearing before the learned Trial Court after the framing of charges vide order dated 30.05.2018. However, on 08.04.2025, the petitioner could not appear before the learned Trial Court as he had inadvertently noted an incorrect date. Consequently, the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled and non-bailable warrants were issued against him vide order dated 31.05.2025.

3. Thereafter, proclamation proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 02.08.2025 for 11.09.2025, and the serving constable was directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 07.08.2025. On 07.08.2025, the serving constable suffered the statement before the trial Court that proclamation was effected on 06.08.2025. After recording the statement of the serving constable on 07.08.2025, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated

11.09.2025.

4. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner was never duly or validly served at any stage and, therefore, had no knowledge of the actual dates of hearing before the trial Court. It is further argued that the mandatory requirements of Section 82(2) Cr.P.C. were not complied with prior to passing the impugned order.

The non-appearance of the petitioner was neither deliberate nor intentional.

5. Aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed person, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

6. It is also submitted that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the trial Court on each and every date.

7. Notice of motion.

8. Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice for the respondent-State and submits that the impugned order has been rightly passed on the ground of the absence of the petitioner.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance and with the consent of parties; the matter is taken up for final disposal.

10. The law is well settled that proclamation is not punitive in nature but procedural, and once the object of securing presence is achieved, technical rigidity ought not to prevail over substantive justice.

11. Further the reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in ‘Surjit Singh Dhaliwal vs. State of Punjab’, CRM-M-20849 of 2021, decided on 16.05.2022, wherein the court has observed that the primary object of service is to secure the accused’s presence in trial. The petitioner has approached this Court on its own, which establishes the bonafide at this stage. Without adjudicating the explanation offered and stand taken by the petitioner, this Court, in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, deems it appropriate to grant the following limited relief to the petitioner, subject to the compliance of the conditions mentioned in this order.

12. In view of dictum laid down in Surjit Singh Dhaliwal’s case (supra) and also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner himself appeared before the Court and the undertaking given before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the prayer of the petitioner is accepted. The impugned order dated 11.09.2025 is set aside to the extent of declaring the petitioner as proclaime