IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Parmod Kumar @ Permod Kumar ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents Date of decision: 05.02.2026 Date of uploading:09.02.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of order dated 15.05.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed person in Comi No.79/2019 dated 24.10.2019 titled as Shanti Saroop vs. Jagdish Ram and others registered under Sections 447, 427, 341, 379, 148 and 149 of the IPC as also quashing of complaint and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person is patently illegal, arbitrary and an abuse of the process of law as the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and Section 84 of BNSS were not complied with. It has been argued that the petitioner had left India in February, 2022 for livelihood and was working in Romania and the inability of the petitioner to join the proceedings was, thus, not deliberate.

Furthermore, the petitioner has never served either personally or at his foreign address and no proclamation was published in accordance with law. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Court below has failed to record any satisfaction that the petitioner has absconded or was concealing himself which is a sine qua non for invoking proclamation proceedings. Learned counsel has brought to the notice of the Court that all co-accused including the petitioner have already been acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya vide judgment dated 24.03.2025 (Annexure P- 8) and, therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be wholly unjustified. Consequently, the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person is unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.

3. Referring to the short reply filed by way of an affidavit of Balwinder Singh PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, on behalf of the State of Punjab, learned State counsel has reiterated the submissions made therein and 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. It is submitted that the petitioner has evaded the proceedings and was declared proclaimed person in the present complaint on 15.05.2023 by the Court below as per law. Furthermore, the petitioner has wasted the precious time of the Court as he did not face the proceedings of the present complaint for a long period of time. It has further been pointed out that the learned Court below scrupulously adhered to the procedure prescribed under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and no infirmity or irregularity is discernible from the record. Furthermore, the petitioner has willfully chosen not to appear before the Court below and consequently, after adopting due process, the Court below was constrained to declare him a proclaimed person. Learned State counsel has, therefore, contended that the conduct of the petitioner clearly establishes his deliberate defiance of the judicial process and misuse of the concession of bail. Accordingly, dismissal of the instant petition has been prayed for.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully perused the record of the case.

5. The law is well settled that no person can be declared a proclaimed offender/person unless the procedure prescribed under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is meticulously ad