IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19833-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 16.04.2026 Rohit Shingari ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Mahir Sood, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for quashing of order dated 06.08.2019 (Annexure P-14), passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar in case arising out of FIR No. 111 dated 29.04.2018, registered under Sections 323, 324, 506, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Division No. 8, District Jalandhar, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person.

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned case. The petitioner was residing in United Kingdom and was not aware of the pendency of criminal proceedings against him. He was never served with any notice/warrants issued by the learned trial Court at his ordinary place of residence in United Kingdom. The petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person without following the proper procedure prescribed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. He is ready to join the Court proceedings. Hence, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter, has resisted the petition by submitting that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the petitioner has rightly been declared a proclaimed person as he was running away from the process of Court. It is, thus, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions.

6. On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed by the learned trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed person, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 06.08.2019 suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

7. A perusal of the statement of the serving police official reveals that the proclamation was not publicly read over in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the petitioner was supposed to be residing. As per Section 82 (2) of 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. The three sub-clauses (a)-(c) in Section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C. are conjunctive and not disjunctive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are proved. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs.

The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368

8. A perusal of the record also shows that the petitioner was residing abroad which was in due knowledge of the complainant. However, no efforts whatsoever were made by the Court concerned to know about the address of the petitioner in abroad, where the process could be sent to him. No letter to Ministry of External Affairs qua service of notice/warrants/proclamation against the petitioner is shown to have been written by the trial Court. As such, it can reasonably be presumed that the process never reached the petitioner and hence, he had no occasio