*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 08.12.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender, in case FIR No.71 dated 04.10.2023, registered under Sections 379-B(2), 201, 120-B of IPC and Sections 25/ 27/59 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Dhilwan, District Kapurthala, along with all proceedings arising thereto qua the petitioner.

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 the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the Court below on 25.10.2023. Learned counsel has submitted that in the intervening period, the petitioner had gone abroad on 13.10.2025 for further study purposes and since then, he was staying there. Learned counsel has submitted that the proclamation was not done in compliance of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. since at the time of proclamation proceedings, the petitioner was not in India, and the trial Court has not taken any step to effect proclamation, in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid section. Learned counsel has argued that still vide order dated 08.12.2025 (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.

2.1. 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.

2.2. Learned counsel has urged that with the intervention of the respectable, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and a compromise/ affidavit dated 10.03.2026 is appended as Annexure P-5 with the petition in hand.

2.3. 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 12.05.2026 (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 08.12.2025, 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.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully perused the record of the case.

5. The law is well settled that no person can be declared a proclaimed offender/person unless the procedure prescribed under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is strictly and meticulously adhered to. It is trite that the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature, and any non-compliance thereof vitiates the entire proceedings. Furthermore, Section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C. clearly provides that before issuing a proclamation, requiring a person to appear, the Court must have reason to believe, based on material on record, that such person has absconded