IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-17318-2026 (O&M)

DECIDED ON: 01.04.2026 HARPAL SINGH .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Amit Kumar Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (corresponding Section 482 Cr.P.C.) for quashing of the order dated 12.06.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Payal in FIR No.198, dated 14.12.2016, under Sections 420, 120-B IPC (corresponding to Sections 318(4), 61(2) of BNS, 2023), registered at Police Station Doraha, District Ludhiana, whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial Court erred in observing that the proclamation issued against the petitioner had been received back duly executed, despite being aware that the petitioner had gone abroad, as reflected from a specific report available on record. It is argued that the declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed offender has been made in complete violation of the mandatory requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C., rendering the impugned order legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing.

3. Notice of motion.

4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. H.S. Wadhwa, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State, who seek dismissal of the present petition on the ground that the petitioner was rightly declared as proclaimed offender after following due procedure as prescribed under law.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. A perusal of the statement of serving official reveals that the proclamation was never publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village.

7. Regarding violation of mandatory provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. as alleged, this Court is of the considered view that the Proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in Section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C. For publication, the proclamation has to be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house. 8. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-14209-2021 titled "Anita Sharma v. State of Punjab ", date of decision 26.03.2021, has summarized the essential requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. as under:-

"(i) Prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court is sine qua non for issuance and publication of the proclamation and the Court has to first issue warrant of arrest against the person concerned. (See Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi: 2008 Crl. J.

2561).

(ii) There must be a report before the Court that the person against whom warrant was issued had absconded or had been concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest could not be executed against him. However, the Court is not bound to take evidence in this regard before issuing a Proclamation under Section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C.. (See Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi:2008Crl. J. 2561).

(iii) The Court cannot issue the Proclamation as a matter of course because the Police is asking for it. The Court must be prima facie satisfied that the person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence. (See Bishundayal Mahton and others v. Emperor: AIR 1943 Patna 366 and Devender Singh Negi v. State of U.P.: 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783).

(iv) The requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the proclamation requiring such person to app