SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 02.11.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur, District Jalandhar, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person, in complaint case No.75/1/2014, dated 21.03.2014, under Sections 324, 326, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860, at Police Station Nurmehal, District Jalandhar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has submitted that earlier an FIR No.35 dated 05.03.2014, was got lodged by respondent No.2 and upon inquiry, the same was found false and the police had filed cancellation report, in that regard. Learned counsel has submitted that thereafter, petitioner left India on 03.03.2015. Learned counsel has submitted that, thereafter, upon complaint having been filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner and other accused person, learned trial Court summoned the petitioner and other persons for 08.02.2016, vide order dated 05.01.2016, but at that time, the petitioner was not in India. Learned counsel has submitted that thereafter, vide order dated 20.07.2016, it was recorded that service of the petitioners was not effected and, thus, notice was issued for 24.08.2016. Further, vide order dated 24.08.2016, proclamation was issued against the petitioner for 01.10.2016. Learned counsel has further submitted that, vide order dated 01.10.2016, it was recorded that proclamation through proclamation was duly effected, but since period of 30 days had not been elapsed and, thus, the case was adjourned to 02.11.2016 for awaiting presence of the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that without issuing fresh proclamation requiring the petitioner to cause appearance before the Court below within a period of 30 days, is in contravention with the settled legal position that a fresh proclamation is mandatory upon adjournment. Ultimately, vide order dated 02.11.2016, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person. Thus, the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender is in gross violation of law and principles of natural justice as there was no deliberate evasion or non-appearance on the part of the petitioner.

2.1. Learned counsel has further submitted that since the petitioner was living abroad, no steps were taken by the Court below to effect service of notice through Embassy where the petitioner was residing.

2.2. Learned counsel has submitted that, vide judgment dated 15.11.2017 passed by learned JMIC, Phillaur, co-accused were convicted, but vide judgment dated 04.09.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Court, Jalandhar, the said co-accused were acquitted of the charge against them.

2.3. Learned counsel has further argued that the proclamation was not done in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C., thus, the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender is in gross violation of law and principles of natural justice as there was no deliberate evasion or non-appearance on the part of the petitioner. On the basis of these submissions, learned counsel has prayed that the impugned order being illegal and unjustified, is liable to be set-aside.

3. Learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the reply by way of an affidavit dated 01.04.2025 (which is already on record) 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. Furthermore, it has been submitted that the petitioner failed to cause appearance before the Court below, and consequently, learned Court below issued proclamation against the petitioner, vide order dated 24.08.2016 and the case was adjourned to 01.10