IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Twinkle Khurana ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ….Respondents Date of Decision: February 10, 2026 Date of Uploading: February 10, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Shivansh Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Haryana.

Ms. Veena Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 18.04.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, whereby, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person, in case bearing No.NACT-1451-2023 titled as “Satvinder Singh versus Twinkle Khurana”, as well as all the subsequent 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 and unsustainable as the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 82 of Cr. P.C. has not been adhered to. It has been argued that summons/ non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner remained unexecuted with the remarks that the petitioner was “not found at the given address”. Learned counsel has further argued that neither any verification was carried out as to whether the address of the petitioner was correct nor was any direction issued to respondent No.2/ complainant to furnish an alternative address. Learned counsel has further argued that the Court below had, without rectifying the incorrect or unverified address and without taking steps to effect proper service, proceeded to issue proclamation, for 13.02.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that despite absence of proof of service of warrants and without any confirmation of compliance with requirements of Section 84(2) of the BNSS, namely, public reading, affixation at residence, affixation at Court premises, the Court below declared the petitioner as proclaimed person, vide order dated 18.04.2025 (Annexure P-13).

2.1. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law and is, therefore, liable to be set-aside. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order has been passed without properly scrutinizing or verifying the authenticity of the report submitted by the process server. Consequently, the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person is unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.

2.2. Learned counsel has also submitted that vide order dated 12.12.2025 passed by this Court, the operation of the impugned order was stayed. Learned counsel has further submitted that during pendency of the petition, the petitioner had caused appearance before the concerned Court on

18.12.2025 and has been released on bail by the said Court.

3. 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. Learned counsel has not controverted the fact that during pendency of the present petition, the petitioner had appeared before the trial Court and was thereafter released on bail. It has, however, argued that the learned Court below scrupulously adhered to the procedure prescribed under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 84 of the BNSS), and no infirmity or irregularity is discernible from the record. The petitioner deliberately evaded the service of summons, non-bailable warrants and thus, willfully chose not to appear before the trial Court. Consequently, after adopting due process, the Court 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