116 (2^nd case)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-55519-2025 Mona Bharti ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab ….Respondent Date of Decision: April 17, 2026 Date of Uploading: April 18, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate and Mr. Munish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

Mr. Suneet Pal Singh Aulakh, Advocate for the complainant.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 25.10.2021 (Annexure P- 21) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender, in case FIR No.265 dated 22.11.2020, registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B of IPC (Section 404 of IPC added lateron), at Police Station Model Town, District Hoshiarpur, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, including FIR No.316 dated 05.12.2022, under Section 174-A of IPC, registered at Police Station Model Town, Hoshiapur qua the petitioner.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It has been submitted that the FIR in question was got registered at the instance of the complainant against Ashish Khushwana, Sunil Kumar and Rahul Kumar, alleging that on 14.11.2020, his father, namely, Bhagwant Kishore and his associate lawyer, namely, Sia alias Geetu wife of Ashish Khushwaha were set on fire in a Maruti Celerio car and the said incident was shown as an accident. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the FIR was got registered against aforesaid three accused and even in the statement of the complainant basis whereof, FIR in question was registered, neither was the petitioner named in the said FIR nor were any specific allegations raised against her. Learned senior counsel has submitted that vide Rapat No.28 dated 28.12.2020, the petitioner was nominated as an accused, in this case.

2.1. Learned counsel has further submitted that non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner, but the same remained unexecuted. Learned senior counsel has submitted that, vide order dated 02.09.2021 passed by the Court below, proclamation was issued under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. for

14.10.2021.

2.2. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the petitioner had filed an application seeking cancellation of non-bailable warrants against her, but the same came to be dismissed, vide order dated 16.09.2021.

2.3. Learned senior counsel has submitted that, vide order dated 14.10.2021, it was noted by the Court below that statement of serving official, regarding proclamation, was recorded, but since 30 days time had not elapsed, therefore, the matter was adjourned to 25.10.20201. Learned senior counsel has submitted that on the said date, i.e., 14.10.2021 itself, an application filed by the petitioner seeking conducting enquiry under Section 82(4) of Cr. P.C. before declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender, was also dismissed.

2.4. Learned senior counsel has submitted that, vide order dated 25.10.2021, the Court below without ensuring due compliance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr. P.C. regarding proclamation, declared the petitioner along with other co-accused, as a proclaimed offender. Learned senior counsel has also argued that, even an FIR No.316 dated 05.12.2022 has been registered under Section 174-A of IPC against the petitioner and other co- accused. Learned senior counsel has submitted that, the impugned order dated 25.10.2021 is non-speaking and mechanical order sans reasons or demonstrating application of judicial mind and the same is not based on facts and circumstances to show that the case was fit to invoke criminal liability of the petitione