The issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. requires mandatory recording of judicial satisfaction that the accused is absconding and strict adherence to the prescribed modes of publication; non-compliance with these procedural mandates renders the order a nullity.

SUMEET GOEL, J.

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing/ setting aside of the impugned order dated 21.10.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person, on the grounds of non-service of summons to the petitioner at her proper address.

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 the primary contentions at hand is, since the address of the petitioner, in the complaint in question, is stated to have been an old address, therefore, the notice, bailable/ non-bailable warrants remained unexecuted/ unserved. Further, to provide a clear picture of the factual background, the learned counsel has stated that vide order dated 24.09.2021, the petitioner was admitted on bail by the Court below. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner was regularly appearing before the Court below, but due to one Payal Sharma, who impersonated herself as an advocate before the Court below, induced the petitioner in respect of filing exemption applications and arranging surety. Learned counsel has submitted that Payal Sharma introduced one Balraj Singh to stand as a surety in the Court proceedings. Due to good faith in Payal Sharma, the petitioner did not attend the Court proceedings, and, said surety – Balraj Singh appeared before the Court below and denied having stood as surety for securing presence of the petitioner. Learned counsel has argued that vide order dated 30.04.2022, bail order of the petitioner was cancelled and bail/ surety bonds were forfeited to the State, and non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner. The petitioner was therefore, under impression that her personal presence has been exempted as per the application filed by Payal Sharma. Moreover, the summons were being served at old address, which did not come to the knowledge of the petitioner; the non-appearance was neither intentional nor deceitful. Learned counsel has further submitted that proclamation proceedings were initiated and vide order dated 05.08.2023, proclamation was issued against the petitioner for 21.10.2023. Learned counsel has argued that, vide order dated 02.09.2023, it has been stated that statement of the serving official was recorded and the matter was adjourned awaiting presence of accused till 21.10.2023. Learned counsel has argued that, still the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person, vide impugned order dated 21.10.2023 passed by the Court below.

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 submitted that pursuant to the order dated 25.02.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner has caused appearance before the Court below and furnished personal bail bonds, and the same were accepted, vide order dated 23.03.2026.

Learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the short reply by way of an affidavit dated 25.02.2026, which is already placed 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 by the learned State counsel that despite repeated opportunities, the petitioner failed to cause appearance before the Court below, and