*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person, in case bearing No.CHI-286 of 2023 titled as ‘State of Punjab versus Harpreet Singh etc.’ instituted on 01.04.2023, in case FIR No.135 dated 16.07.2021, registered under Sections 341, 325, 323, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860, at Police Station City Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

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 the petitioner was released on bail by the Court below on 01.04.2023. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner was regularly appearing before the Court below and even on many occasions, applications seeking exemption from personal appearance of the were allowed. Learned counsel has asserted that on 28.01.2025, the petitioner could not cause appearance due to bona fide reasons as compromise talks were underway between the parties and the petitioner remained under impression that offence would be compounded. Learned counsel has submitted that due to lack of communication with the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner could not remain aware of subsequent proceedings before the Court below. Learned counsel has argued that non-bailable warrants remained unexecuted, but still proclamation was issued against the petitioner, vide order dated 23.07.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted that subsequently, vide order dated 06.10.2025 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person. Learned counsel has argued that the said proclamation was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. Learned counsel has argued that statement of the serving official reveals that at the time of execution of the proclamation, the petitioner was not present at his address and further, the proclamation was not read at a conspicuous place of the residence of the petitioner.

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.

Learned counsel has, however, submitted that pursuant to the order dated 02.04.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner has caused appearance before the Court below and has been released on bail.

Learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the reply by way of an affidavit dated 11.05.2026 (filed in the Court today and the same is taken 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. Learned State counsel has argued that ultimately, vide impugned order dated 06.10.2025, the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person after following the procedure as laid-down under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 in letter and spirit and no discrepancy whatsoever is forthcoming from the records of the case. Accordingly, dismissal of the instant petition has been prayed for.

Learned State counsel has, however, submitted that pursuant t